REGENTS PHYSICS

Will the rigor of the course be compromised?

No. Studies show that students need time to move from their naïve conceptions about
science to more expert-like views. In addition, students who study fewer topics in greater
depth in high school have higher success in college science than their peers who had a
greater breadth of coverage. Instead of being asked to demonstrate their knowledge about
a wide-range of topics at a superficial level (like the Regents exam), students must show
they have a deep understanding of the essentials.
[BLUE Attached: Depth vs. Breadth study]

What is essential to prepare students for college?

The College Board recently identified the knowledge and skills students need to be
successful in college science. These standards adhere to the “more depth, less breadth”
approach. I can attest that the physics standards are pedagogically sound – they draw from
large volume of research on how students learn physics.
[PINK Attached: College Board Standards for College Success]

How will students learn physics to obtain a deep understanding of the essentials?
We currently teach physics using Modeling Instruction whenever possible. Frank was trained
in Modeling Instruction at a 2.5 week summer institute at Buffalo State in 2004. Jim
attended 2.5 weeks of summer training at Arizona State in 2005. Modeling instruction has
embraced Tony Wagner’s 7 essential skills long before he wrote the book! Instead of relying
on lectures and textbooks, Modeling Instruction has students design experiments to
determine physics concepts and relationships themselves. Students must reconcile the
results of their experiments with their own (often naïve views) of how the world works. They
then present their results to the class so we can come to a consensus. This entire process
takes much more time than a traditional-lecture based approach, but the depth of student
understanding and retention is much greater.
[GREEN Attached: Modeling Instruction article]

What types of alternate assessments might students do?

There are a variety of ways students can be assessed besides a paper-and-pencil exam. I’ve
included a list of possible projects/assessments that can be used as a culminating activity in
a modeling cycle or even given at the start of a unit as motivation to drive instruction
forward. Again, implementing experiences like these for students takes more time than
traditional instruction.
[YELLOW Attached: Sample assessments]

How will you know students are performing at the same level without the exam?
I am implementing a criterion-based grading system. Learning goals for teach topic are
clearly laid out and students are graded using a 1-4 rubric for each goal. Every HW, class
discussion, quiz, project, etc. can be used as evidence to see how well students are
reaching these learning goals. Students are evaluated on eventual mastery and any initial
missteps while exploring the content are not considered. This system ensures I know (and
students know) whether students have the essential skills and knowledge needed for
success in college science.
[WHITE Attached: Samples criterion-based grading and rubrics used by students]
Depth Versus Breadth: How
Content Coverage in High School
Science Courses Relates to Later
Success in College Science
Coursework

MARC S. SCHWARTZ
University of Texas, Arlington, TX 76019, USA

PHILIP M. SADLER, GERHARD SONNERT

Science Education Department, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

ROBERT H. TAI
Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education Department, Curry School of Education,
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA

Received 5 March 2008; revised 1 September 2008, 10 October 2008;

accepted 17 October 2008

DOI 10.1002/sce.20328
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

ABSTRACT: This study relates the performance of college students in introductory science
courses to the amount of content covered in their high school science courses. The sample
includes 8310 students in introductory biology, chemistry, or physics courses in 55 randomly
chosen U.S. colleges and universities. Students who reported covering at least 1 major topic
in depth, for a month or longer, in high school were found to earn higher grades in college
science than did students who reported no coverage in depth. Students reporting breadth in
their high school course, covering all major topics, did not appear to have any advantage in
chemistry or physics and a significant disadvantage in biology. Care was taken to account
for significant covariates: socioeconomic variables, English and mathematics proficiency,
and rigor of their preparatory high science course. Alternative operationalizations of depth
and breadth variables result in very similar findings. We conclude that teachers should
use their judgment to reduce coverage in high school science courses and aim for mastery
by extending at least 1 topic in depth over an extended period of time. !C 2008 Wiley

Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 1 – 29, 2008

Correspondence to: Marc S. Schwartz; e-mail: schwarma@uta.edu

Contract grant sponsor: Interagency Eductional Research Initiative.
Contract grant number: NSF-REC 0115649.
!
C 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
 DEPTH VERSUS BREADTH 21

academically weaker students? We systematically investigated the interactions be-

tween performance variables and the depth and breadth variables and found only
two interactions significant below the .05 level. Contrary to the main effects analysis
results, the significance of the interactions was not consistent and did not provide
a clear picture of the connections between the outcome and predictors. The results
suggest that the associations for high- and low-achieving students are similar with
respect to depth and breadth of content coverage.4
– Students of highly rated teachers. Our survey asked students to rate several teacher
characteristics. If depth and breadth were to a considerable extent correlated with
those teacher characteristics, this would make the results harder to interpret because
of the conundrum of colinearity: that particular teacher characteristics (rather than
depth or breadth of coverage) might be the actual determinants of student outcomes,
and that depth or breadth themselves might merely reflect those teacher charac-
teristics by association. Teacher characteristics, however, were found to be only
minimally correlated with breadth and depth. Among the teacher characteristics,
only very weak correlations are found between breadth and the teacher’s rated abil-
ity to explain problems in several different ways (r = .04). Depth correlated weakly
with the ratings of the teacher’s subject knowledge (r = .05). It appears that highly
rated teachers are no more likely than others to teach with depth or breadth.

DISCUSSION
The baseline model (Table 2) shows the association between breadth and depth of high
school science curricula and first-course introductory-level college science performance.
The most striking analytical characteristic is the consistency of the results across the three
baseline models, revealing the same trends across the disciplines of biology, chemistry,
and physics. In addition, the contrast of positive associations between depth and perfor-
mance and negative associations between breadth and performance is striking, though not
significant in all cases. This replication of results across differing disciplines suggests a
consistency to the findings. However, we caution that the baseline model offers only out-
comes apart from the consideration of additional factors that may have some influence on
these associations. The robustness of these associations was put to the test, as additional
factors were included in an extended model with additional analyses.
The extended model, shown in Table 3, included variables that control for variations
in student achievement as measured by tests scores, high school course level (regular,
honors, AP), and high school grades as well as background variables such as parent’s
educational level, community socioeconomic level, public high school attendance, and
year in college. With the addition of these variables in the extended model, we find that
the magnitude of the coefficients decreased in the majority of instances, but the trends
and their significance remained. Keeping in mind the generalized nature of the analyses
we have undertaken, the most notable feature of these results stems not simply from the
magnitude of the coefficients, but rather from the trends and their significance. Here, the
positive associations between depth of study and performance remain significant whereas
the negative association between breadth of study and performance retains its significance
in the biology analysis. Although this association is not significant in the chemistry and
physics analyses, the negative trend is consistent with our result for biology.

4
A significant interaction (p = .03) was found between the math SAT score and depth. In addition, a
second significant interaction (p = .02) was found between breadth and most advanced mathematics grade.
Apart from these two significant interactions, all others were nonsignificant.

Science Education
22 SCHWARTZ ET AL.

What these outcomes reveal is that although the choice to pursue depth of study has
a significant and positive association with performance, the choice to pursue breadth of
study appears to have implications as well. These appear to be that students whose teachers
choose broad coverage of content, on the average, experience no benefit. In the extended
model, we arrive at these results while accounting for important differences in students’
backgrounds and academic performance, which attests to the robustness of these findings.
The findings run counter to philosophical positions that favor breadth or those that advocate
a balance between depth and breadth (Murtagh, 2001; Wright, 2000).
Finally, a particularly surprising and intriguing finding from our analysis indicated that
the depth and breadth variables as defined in this analysis appear to be uncorrelated;
additionally, the interactions between both variables are not significant in either model.
Figure 6 offers an analysis of the outcomes treating breadth and depth as independent
characteristics of high school science curriculum. The first panel reveals that over 40%
of the students in our survey fall within the “depth present–breadth absent” grouping,
whereas the other three varied between 14% and 23%. The distribution across these four
groupings shows that the teachers of students in our survey are making choices about which
topics to leave out and which to emphasize. These choices have consequences. The second
panel indicates that those students reporting high school science experiences associated
with the group “depth present–breadth absent” have an advantage equal to two thirds of a
year of instruction over their peers who had the opposite high school experience (“Depth
Absent–Breadth Present”). This outcome is particularly important given that high school
science teachers are often faced with choices that require balancing available class time
and course content. It appears that even teachers who attempt to follow the “best of both
worlds” approach by mixing depth and breadth of content coverage do not, on average,
provide an advantage to their students who continue to study science in college over their
peers whose teachers focused on depth of content coverage.
Rather than relying solely on one definition of depth and breadth, we examined alternative
operationalizations of the breadth and depth variables and replicated the analysis. The
findings remained robust when these alternative operationalizations were applied.
However, a limitation in our definition of depth and breadth stems from the smallest unit
of time we used in the study to define depth of study, which was on the order of weeks.
Our analysis cannot discern a “grain size” smaller than weeks. Teachers may opt to study
a single concept in a class period or many within that period. Likewise, teachers might
decide that a single laboratory experiment should go through several iterations in as many
days, while others will “cover” three different, unrelated laboratories in the same time span.
These differences are beyond the capacity of our analysis to resolve. In the end, our work
is but one approach to the analysis of the concepts of depth and breadth generated from
students’ self-reports of their high school science classroom experiences.

Findings in Light of Research From Cognitive Science

Most students hold conceptions that are at odds with those of their teachers or those
of scientists. In general, students cling tenaciously to these ideas, even in the face of
concerted efforts (Sadler, 1998). These “misconceptions” or “alternative conceptions” have
been uncovered using several research techniques, but qualitative interviews, traceable to
Piaget, have proven highly productive (Duckworth, 1987; Osborne & Gilbert, 1980). A
vast number of papers have been published revealing student misconceptions in a variety
of domains (Pfunt & Duit, 1994).
Students do not quickly or easily change their naı̈ve scientific conceptions, even when
confronted with physical phenomena. However, given enough time and the proper impetus,
Science Education
 DEPTH VERSUS BREADTH 23

students can revisit and rethink their ideas. This change can often be painstakingly slow,
taking much longer than many teachers allow in the rapid conveyance of content that is
the hallmark of a curriculum that focuses on broad coverage. In the view of Eylon and
Linn (1988), “in-depth coverage can elaborate incomplete ideas, provide enough cues to
encourage selection of different views of a phenomenon, or establish a well-understood
alternative” (p. 263). Focused class time is required for teachers to probe for the levels of
understanding attained by students and for students to elucidate their preconceptions. It
takes focused time for students to test their ideas and find them wanting, motivating them to
reconstruct their knowledge. Eylon and Linn note, “Furthermore, students may hold onto
these ideas because they are well established and reasonably effective, not because they are
concrete. For example, naı̈ve notions of mechanics are generally appropriate for dealing
with a friction-filled world. In addition, students appear quite able to think abstractly as
long as they have appropriate science topic knowledge, even if they are young, and even
if their ideas are incomplete. Thus, deep coverage of a topic may elicit abstract reasoning”
(p. 290).
The difficulty of promoting conceptual growth is well documented in neo-Piagetian
models (Case, 1998; Fischer & Bidell, 2006; Parziale & Fischer, 1998; Schwartz & Sadler,
2007; Siegler, 1998). These researchers argue that more complex representations, such as
those prized in the sciences, require multiple opportunities for construction in addition to
multiple experiences in which those ideas and observations may be coordinated into richer,
more complex understandings of their world. This process is necessarily intensive and time
consuming because the growth of understanding is a nonlinear process that is sensitive to
changes in context, emotions, and degree of practice. The experience of developing richer
understandings is similar to learning to juggle (Schwartz & Fischer, 2004). Learning to
juggle three balls at home does not guarantee you can juggle the same three balls in front of
an audience. Alternatively, learning to juggle three balls does not mean that you can juggle
three raw eggs. Changes in context and variables lead to differences in the relationships
that students have with ideas (both new and old) and their ability to maintain them over
time (Fischer & Pipp, 1984; Fischer, Bullock, Rotenberg, & Raya, 1993). The process
of integrating many variables that scientists consider in scientific models is a foreign and
difficult assignment for anyone outside the immediate field of research.
As just noted, the realization in the cognitive sciences that the learning process is not
linear is an important pedagogical insight. Because learning is a dynamic operation that
depends on numerous variables, leaving a topic too soon deprives students and teachers
the time to experience situations that allow students to confront personal understandings
and connections and to evaluate the usefulness of scientific models within their personal
models.

Implications in Light of High-Stakes Testing

We are currently in the “Age of Accountability” in U.S. education. The hallmark of this
era is high-stakes standardized testing. The nature and consequences of these examinations
influence the pedagogy that teachers use in the classroom. As Li et al. (2006) observed:
“Academic and policy debates seem somewhat remote to practitioners on the frontline of
science education. Science teachers, department heads, and instructional specialists need to
survive and thrive in a teaching environment increasingly driven by standards and measured
by accountability tests. They are the ones who must, here and now, find solutions to the
pressing problems of standards-based reform” (p. 5).
Our concern stems from the connection between the extent that high-stakes state ex-
aminations focus on the “facts” of science, secondary school science teachers will focus
Science Education
24 SCHWARTZ ET AL.

their pedagogy on ensuring that students can recite these “facts.” Clearly, high-stakes ex-
aminations that require recall of unrelated bits of scientific knowledge in the form of facts
and isolated constructs will increase the likelihood that teachers will adjust their teaching
methodologies to address these objectives. The more often discrete facts appear on high-
stakes examinations, the more often we imagine that teachers will feel pressured to focus
on breadth of knowledge. Conversely, we feel that the adoption of a different approach in
high-stakes testing that is less focused on the recall of wide-ranging facts but is, instead,
focused on a few widely accepted key conceptual understandings will result in a shift of
pedagogy. In such situations, we envision teachers’ instructional practice and curricula
designed to offer students greater opportunity to explore the various contexts from which
conceptual understandings emerge. We suspect that the additional focused time will allow
students to recognize (and teachers to challenge) students’ naı̈ve conceptions of nature.
These concerns fall in line with Anderson’s (2004, p. 1) three conclusions about
standards-based reform in the United States:

• The reform agenda is more ambitious than our current resources and infrastructure
will support.
• The standards advocate strategies that may not reduce achievement gaps among
different groups of students.
• There are too many standards, more than students can learn with understanding in
the time we have to teach science.

Anderson’s (2004) final conclusion strongly resonates with that of the NRC (2007)
and more specifically with findings, at the international level, by Schmidt et al. (1997,
2005). In a comparison of 46 countries, Schmidt et al. (2005) noted that in top-achieving
countries, the science frameworks cover far fewer topics than in the United States, and
that students from these countries perform significantly better than students in the United
States. They conclude that U.S. standards are not likely to create a framework that develops
and supports understanding or “coherence,” a strategy that encourages the development of
a deeper understanding of the structure of the discipline. By international standards, the
U.S. science framework is “unfocused, repetitive, and undemanding” (p. 532).
From the perspective of our study, both Schmidt et al. (2005) and Anderson’s (2004)
conclusions are particularly relevant. Clearly, increasing the quantity of information re-
quired for examination preparation will lead to an increased focus on broader coverage
of course content, an approach that our findings indicate is negatively (or certainly not
positively) associated with performance in subsequent science courses. If teachers know
that they and their students are accountable for more material, then the pressure to focus
on breadth would seem like the natural pedagogical choice to make. Hence, teachers must
decide whether they choose to maximize students’ test scores or maximize preparation
for success in future study. Although they have considerable feedback concerning the test
scores of their students (from state tests, SATs, ACTs, and AP examinations), they have
almost no knowledge of how the bulk of their students do in college science, save the few
who keep in touch. Moreover, the rare college student who reports back to their high school
science teacher is often the most successful and simply reinforces a teacher’s confidence in
his or her current methods.

Caveats
There are several concerns we wish to clearly elucidate. A potential criticism of this
study stems from a central element of this analysis, the length of time spent on a topic
Science Education
 DEPTH VERSUS BREADTH 25

and how this variable might be influenced by the ability level of students to grasp the
material. One might imagine classrooms containing many struggling students actually
spending more time on particular topics and classes with generally high achieving students
requiring less time to grasp the concepts and quickly moving on to other topics. In this
scenario, depth of content coverage would be an indicator for remedial assistance by the
teacher at the classroom level. However, we assume that students in our sample—those
who went on to take introductory science courses—are typically well above average in
their science abilities. Thus we would expect our depth measure, if it really signified a
remedial scenario, to have a negative impact, if any, on student performance in introductory
college science courses. As it was, we observed the opposite (i.e., depth was associated
with higher performance, even when controlled for student achievement in high school).
This argument suggests that the remedial depth scenario is unlikely.
Another issue in this analysis is the degree to which we might expect other variables in
the FICSS survey to correlate with depth and breadth as defined. We identified one such
item in our survey: “How would you best describe learning the material required in your
[high school science] course?” The respondents were provided with a 5-point rating scale
ranging from “A lot of memorization of facts” to “A full understanding of topics.” This
question is constructed in a manner that clearly alludes (at one end of the scale) to a type
of memorization that presumes a cursory or superficial level of understanding. This was
certainly our intention when we wrote this question. However, Ramsden (2003) notes that
the act of memorization may help learners deconstruct the structure and connections in the
body of information they are attempting to commit to memory. Thus, is memorization a
feature of both depth and breadth in learning? On the basis of this more carefully considered
characterization of memorization and taking into account the tone and clear intention of
this questionnaire item, we hypothesized that the responses to this item would have a
weak positive correlation, if any, with depth, and a weak negative correlation, if any, with
breadth. In the analysis, we found the correlation with depth was r = .15 (very weak) and
the correlation with breadth was r = −.09, a result commonly considered “not correlated.”
The results in this case suggest that memorization (as a new variable) is orthogonal with
our definition of breadth and depth and is not subsumed by depth or breadth. However, it
remains to be seen how well our definitions hold up as new variables are identified.

Further Research: Looking at Individual Subject Areas

A key issue for further research in the analysis of the constructs of breadth versus depth is
whether there are specific topics that high school teachers should focus on or whether high
school teachers might choose to focus on any topic and still potentially reap an advantage
in terms of students’ enhanced future performance. In other words, do students perform
better in introductory college science courses if they were exposed to at least one science
topic in depth, regardless of what it was, or does it help them if they specifically studied
topic “A” in depth, but not if they studied topic “B” in depth? An analogous argument can
be made regarding breadth. It therefore appears useful to examine the potential effects of
depth in individual subject areas, and of the omission of individual subject areas, in future
research.

CONCLUSION
The baseline model reveals a direct and compelling outcome: teaching for depth is
associated with improvements in later performance. Of course, there is much to consider
in evaluating the implications of such an analysis. There are a number of questions about
Science Education
26 SCHWARTZ ET AL.

this simple conclusion that naturally emerge. For example, how much depth works best?
What is the optimal manner to operationalize the impact of depth-based learning? Do
specific contexts (such as type of student, teacher, or school) moderate the impact of depth?
The answers to these questions certainly suggest that a more nuanced view should be
sought. Nonetheless, this analysis appears to indicate that a robust positive association
exists between high school science teaching that provides depth in at least one topic and
better performances in introductory postsecondary science courses.
Our results also clearly suggest that breadth-based learning, as commonly applied in
high school classrooms, does not appear to offer students any advantage when they enroll
in introductory college science courses, although it may contribute to higher scores on
standardized tests. However, the intuitive appeal of broadly surveying a discipline in an
introductory high school course cannot be overlooked. There might be benefits to such a
pedagogy that become apparent when using measures that we did not explore. The results
regarding breadth were less compelling because in only one of the three disciplines were
the results significant in our full model. On the other hand, we observed no positive effects
at all. As it stands, our findings at least suggest that aiming for breadth in content coverage
should be avoided, as we found no evidence to support such an approach.

The authors thank the people who made this large research project possible: Janice M. Earle, Finbarr
C. Sloane, and Larry E. Suter of the National Science Foundation for their insight and support; James
H. Wandersee, Joel J. Mintzes, Lillian C. McDermott, Eric Mazur, Dudley R. Herschbach, Brian
Alters, and Jason Wiles of the FICCS Advisory Board for their guidance; and Nancy Cianchetta,
Susan Matthews, Dan Record, and Tim Reed of our High School Advisory Board for their time
and wisdom. This research has resulted from the tireless efforts of many on our research team:
Michael Filisky, Hal Coyle, Cynthia Crockett, Bruce Ward, Judith Peritz, Annette Trenga, Freeman
Deutsch, Nancy Cook, Zahra Hazari, and Jamie Miller. Matthew H. Schneps, Nancy Finkelstein,
Alex Griswold, Tobias McElheny, Yael Bowman, and Alexia Prichard of our Science Media Group
constructed of our dissemination website (www.ficss.org). We also appreciate advice and interest
from several colleagues in the field: Michael Neuschatz of the American Institute of Physics, William
Lichten of Yale University, Trevor Packer of the College Board, Saul Geiser of the University of
California, Paul Hickman of Northeastern University, William Fitzsimmons, Marlyn McGrath Lewis,
Georgene Herschbach, and Rory Browne of Harvard University, and Kristen Klopfenstein of Texas
Christian University. We are indebted to the professors at universities and colleges nationwide who
felt that this project was worth contributing a piece of their valuable class to administer our surveys
and their students’ willingness to answer our questions. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, or the National
Institutes of Health.

REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans.
Washington, DC: Author.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Anaya, G. (1999). Accuracy of self-reported test scores. College and University, 75(2), 13 – 19.
Anderson, C. W. (2004). Science education research, environmental literacy, and our collective future. National
Association for Research in Science Teaching. NARST News, 47(2), 1 – 5.
Anderson, R. D. (1995). Curriculum reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1), 33 – 36.
Baird, L. (1976). Using self-reports to predict student performance. Research Monograph No. 7. New York:
College Entrance Examination Board.

Science Education
College Board Standards for College Success Page 1 of 2

Close x

Educators - Information & Tools For Teachers, Counselors, Higher Education Faculty and
Administrators Home > K–12 Services > College Board Standards for College Success™ Print Page

College Board Standards for College Success

About the College Board Standards for College Success (CBSCS)
The College Board Standards for College Success (CBSCS) define the knowledge and skills students need to
develop and master in English language arts, mathematics and statistics, and science in order to be college and
career ready. The CBSCS outline a clear and coherent pathway to Advanced Placement® (AP®) and college
readiness with the goal of increasing the number and diversity of students who are prepared not only to enroll in
college, but to succeed in college and 21st-century careers. The College Board has published these standards freely
to provide a national model of rigorous academic content standards that states, districts, schools and teachers may
use to vertically align curriculum, instruction, assessment and professional development to AP and college
readiness. These rigorous standards:

provide a model set of comprehensive standards for middle school and high school courses that lead to
college and workplace readiness;
reflect 21st-century skills such as problem solving, critical and creative thinking, collaboration, and media and
technological literacy;
articulate clear standards and objectives with supporting, in-depth performance expectations to guide
instruction and curriculum development;
provide teachers, districts and states with tools for increasing the rigor and alignment of courses across
grades 6-12 to college and workplace readiness; and
assist teachers in designing lessons and classroom assessments.

Standards Development Process

To guide the standards development process, the College Board convened national committees of middle school
and high school teachers, college faculty, subject matter experts, assessment specialists, teacher education faculty
and curriculum experts who had experience in developing content standards for states and national professional
organizations.

The standards advisory committees relied on college-readiness evidence gathered from a wide array of sources to
design and develop the CBSCS. These sources include national and international frameworks such as National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), and Trends
in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS); results of surveys and course content analyses from
college faculty regarding what is most important for college readiness; assessment frameworks from relevant AP
exams, the SAT®, the PSAT/NMSQT®, and College Level Examination Program® (CLEP®) exams, and selected
university placement programs.

Beginning with the end goal in mind, the committees first defined the academic demands students will face in AP or
first-year college courses in English, mathematics and statistics, and science. After identifying these demands, the
committees then backmapped to the start of middle school to outline a vertical progression, or road map, of critical
thinking skills and knowledge students need to be prepared for college-level work.

Standards and Curriculum Alignment Services

States and districts are encouraged to use the CBSCS as a guiding framework to strengthen the alignment of their
standards, curriculum and assessments to college readiness. The College Board offers standards and curriculum
alignment services to states and districts, providing independent reviews of standards, curriculum and assessments.
College Board content specialists use established alignment methods and review criteria to analyze the alignment
and offer meaningful findings and recommendations tailored to a state‘s or district's needs.

http://professionals.collegeboard.com/portal/site/Professionals/menuitem.b6b1a9bc0c561... 10/21/2009
College Board Standards for College Success Page 2 of 2

The College Board also uses the CBSCS to align our own curriculum and assessment programs, including
SpringBoard®, to college readiness.

Learn More
Please contact Standards and Curriculum Alignment Services at Standards_Requests@collegeboard.org or your
regional College Board representative for more information on the CBSCS and our alignment services.

Science (.pdf/4.4M)
English Language Arts (.pdf/1.9M)
Mathematics & Statistics (.pdf/535K)
Mathematics & Statistics Adapted for Integrated Curricula (.pdf/368K)
Mathematics & Statistics Three-Year Alternative for Middle School (.pdf/121K)

http://professionals.collegeboard.com/portal/site/Professionals/menuitem.b6b1a9bc0c561... 10/21/2009
 Jane Jackson, Larry Dukerich, David Hestenes
Modeling Instruction: An Effective
Model for Science Education
The authors describe a Modeling Instruction program that places an emphasis
on the construction and application of conceptual models of physical
phenomena as a central aspect of learning and doing science.
Introduction
Modeling Instruction is an evolving,
research-based program for high
school science education reform
that was supported by the National
Science Foundation (NSF) from
1989 to 2005. The name Modeling
Instruction expresses an emphasis
on the construction and application
of conceptual models of physical
phenomena as a central aspect of
learning and doing science (Hestenes,
1987; Wells et al, 1995; Hestenes,
1997). Both the National Science
Education Standards (NRC, 1996)
and National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics Standards (NCTM),
as well as Benchmarks for Science
Literacy (AAAS, 1993) recommend
“models and modeling” as a unifying
theme for science and mathematics
education. To our knowledge, no other
program has implemented this theme
so thoroughly.
From 1995 to 1999, 200 high
school physics teachers participated in
two four-week Leadership Modeling
Workshops with NSF support. Since
that time, 2500 additional teachers from
48 states and a few other nations have
taken summer Modeling Workshops at
universities in many states, supported
largely by state funds. Participants
include teachers from public and
private schools in urban, suburban,
10
and rural areas. Modeling Workshops
at Arizona State University (ASU) are
the cornerstone of a graduate program
for teachers of the physical sciences.
Recently, Modeling has expanded to
embrace the entire middle/high school
physical science curriculum. The
program has an extensive web site at
http://modeling.asu.edu.
Product: Students Who Can
Think
Modeling Instruction meets or
exceeds NSES teaching standards,
professional development standards,
assessment standards, and content and
inquiry standards.
Modeling Instruction produces
students who engage intelligently in
public discourse and debate about
matters of scientific and technical
concern. Betsy Barnard, a modeler
in Madison, Wisconsin, noticed
a significant change in this area
after Modeling was implemented
in her school: “I teach a course in
biotechnology, mostly to seniors,
Students in modeling
classrooms experience
first-hand the richness and
excitement of learning about
the natural world.
nearly all of whom had physics the
previous year. When asked to formally
present information to the class about
controversial topics such as cloning
or genetically modified organisms, it
is delightfully clear how much more
articulate and confident they are.”
Students in modeling classrooms
experience first-hand the richness and
excitement of learning about the natural
world. One example comes from
Phoenix modeler Robert McDowell.
He wrote that, under traditional
instruction, “when asked a question
about some science application in a
movie, I might get a few students who
would cite 1-2 errors, but usually with
uncertainty. Since I started Modeling,
the students now bring up their own
topics … not just from movies, but
their everyday experiences.” One of
his students wrote, “Mr. McDowell, I
was at a Diamondback baseball game
recently, and all I could think of was
all the physics problems involved.”
A former student of another modeler,
Gail Seemueller of Rhode Island,
described it as follows: “She wanted us
to truly LEARN and more importantly
UNDERSTAND the material. I was
engaged. We did many hands-on
experiments of which I can still vividly
remember, three years later.”
Kelli Gamez Warble of rural
Arizona, who has taught physics and
Science Educator
calculus for a decade using Modeling
Instruction, has had numerous students
whose career choices were influenced
by Modeling Instruction. She wrote
about discovering several former
students when visiting an ASU
Engineering Day, and all but one were
females. She wrote, “As a former
female engineering student myself,
I was gratified but not surprised.
Modeling encourages cooperation
and discourse about complicated
ideas in a non-threatening, supportive
environment. Females who view
science, engineering, and technology
as fields encouraging cooperation
and supportiveness will, I believe,
become much more attracted to these
non-traditional areas.”
Excellence
Many modeling teachers have
been recognized nationally. For
example, three users of Modeling
Instruction have received the National
Science Teachers Association (NSTA)
Shell Science Teaching Award.
Numerous modelers have received
the Presidential Award for Excellence
in Math and Science Teaching
(PAEMST). At Modeling Workshops
and related graduate courses for
science teachers at ASU, as well as
at Modeling Workshops across the
United States, teachers learn to impact
students of various backgrounds and
learning styles. Modeling Workshops
and classrooms are thriving centers of
interactive engagement.
The Essence of Modeling
Instruction
The Modeling method of instruction
corrects many weaknesses of the
traditional lecture-demonstration
method, including the fragmentation
of knowledge, student passivity, and
the persistence of naïve beliefs about
Spring 2008  Vol. 17, No. 1
Students present and justify
their conclusions in oral and
written form, including the
formulation of a model for
the phenomena in question
and an evaluation of the
model by comparison with
data.
the physical world. From its inception,
the Modeling Instruction program has
been concerned with reforming high
school physics teaching to make it
more coherent and student-centered,
and to incorporate the computer as an
essential scientific tool.
In a series of intensive workshops
over two years, high school teachers
learn to be leaders in science teaching
reform and technology infusion in
their schools. They are equipped
with a robust teaching methodology
for developing student abilities to
make sense of physical experience,
to understand scientific claims, to
articulate coherent opinions of their
own and defend them with cogent
arguments, and to evaluate evidence
in support of justified belief.
More specifically, teachers learn
to ground their teaching in a well-
defined pedagogical framework
(modeling theory; Hestenes, 1987),
rather than following rules of thumb;
to organize course content around
scientific models as coherent units
of structured knowledge; to engage
students collaboratively in making
and using models to describe, explain,
predict, design, and control physical
phenomena; to involve students in
using computers as scientific tools
for collecting, organizing, analyzing,
visualizing, and modeling real data; to
assess student understanding in more
meaningful ways and experiment with
more authentic means of assessment;
to continuously improve and update
instruction with new software,
curriculum materials, and insights
from educational research; and
to work collaboratively in action
research teams to mutually improve
their teaching practice. Altogether,
Modeling Workshops provide detailed
implementation of the National
Science Education Standards.
The modeling cycle, student
conceptions, discourse
Instruction is organized into
modeling cycles rather than traditional
content units. This promotes an
integrated understanding of modeling
processes and the acquisition of
coordinated modeling skills. The
two main stages of this process
are model development and model
deployment.
The first stage—model
development—typically begins
with a demonstration and class
discussion. This establishes a common
understanding of a question to be
asked of nature. Then, in small groups,
students collaborate in planning and
conducting experiments to answer or
clarify the question. Students present
and justify their conclusions in oral and
written form, including the formulation
of a model for the phenomena in
question and an evaluation of the
model by comparison with data.
Technical terms and representational
tools are introduced by the teacher as
they are needed to sharpen models,
facilitate modeling activities, and
improve the quality of discourse. The
teacher is prepared with a definite
agenda for student progress and guides
student inquiry and discussion in that
direction with “Socratic” questioning
11
and remarks. The teacher is equipped
with a taxonomy of typical student
misconceptions to be addressed as
students are induced to articulate,
analyze, and justify their personal
beliefs (Halloun and Hestenes, 1985b,
Hestenes et al., 1992).
During the second stage—model
deployment—students apply their
newly-discovered model to new
Table 1.  Modeling Cycle Example:  The Constant Velocity Model
I. Model Development (Paradigm
Lab)
A. Pre-lab discussion
Students observe battery-
powered vehicles moving
across the floor and describe
their observations. The
teacher guides them toward
a laboratory investigation to
determine whether the vehicle
moves at constant speed, and
to determine a mathematical
model of the vehicle’s
motion.
B. Lab investigation
Students collect position and
time data for the vehicles and
analyze the data to develop a
mathematical model. (In this
case, the graph of position
vs. time is linear, so they do a
linear regression to determine
the model.) Students then
display their results on small
whiteboards and prepare
presentations.
C. Post-lab discussion
Students present the results of
their lab investigations to the
rest of the class and interpret
what their model means in
terms of the motion of the
vehicle. After all lab groups
12
The teacher is equipped
with a taxonomy of typical
student misconceptions to
be addressed as students
are induced to articulate,
analyze, and justify their
personal beliefs.
have presented, the teacher
leads a discussion of the
models to develop a general
mathematical model that
describes constant-velocity
motion.
II. Model Deployment
A. Worksheets
Working in small groups,
students complete worksheets
that ask them to apply the
constant-velocity model
to various new situations.
They are asked to prepare
whiteboard presentations of
their problem solutions and
present them to the class. The
teacher’s role at this stage is
continual questioning of the
students to encourage them to
articulate what they know and
how they know it, thereby
correcting any lingering
misconceptions.
B. Quizzes
In order to do mid-course
progress checks for student
understanding, the modeling
materials include several
short quizzes. Students
are asked to complete
these quizzes individually
situations to refine and deepen their
understanding. Students work on
challenging worksheet problems in
small groups, and then present and
defend their results to the class. This
stage also includes quizzes, tests, and
lab practicums. An example of the
entire modeling cycle is outlined in
Table 1.
to demonstrate their
understanding of the model
and its application. Students
are asked not only to solve
problems, but also to provide
brief explanations of their
problem-solving strategies.
C. Lab Practicum
To further check for
understanding, students
are asked to complete a lab
practicum in which they need
to use the constant-velocity
model to solve a real-world
problem. Working in groups,
they come to agreement on
a solution and then test their
solution with the battery-
powered vehicles.
D. Unit Test
As a final check for
understanding, students take
a unit test. (The constant-
velocity unit is the first unit
of the curriculum. In later unit
tests, students are required to
incorporate models developed
earlier in the course into their
problem solving; this is an
example of the spiral nature of
the modeling curriculum.)
Science Educator
 That models and modeling should
be central to an inquiry-based approach
to the study of physics is no surprise.
The NSES state, “Student inquiries
should culminate in formulating
an explanation or model… In the
process of answering the questions, the
students should engage in discussions
and arguments that result in the
revision of their explanations.”
Traditional instruction often
overlooks the crucial influence of
students’ personal beliefs on what
they learn. Force Concept Inventory
(FCI) data (Hestenes et al., 1992) show
that students are not easily induced
to discard their misconceptions in
favor of Newtonian concepts. Some
educational researchers have expended
considerable effort in designing and
testing teaching methods to deal with
specific misconceptions. Although
their outcomes have been decidedly
In Modeling, instead of
designing the course to
address specific “naïve
conceptions,” the instructor
focuses on helping students
construct appropriate
models to account for the
phenomena they study.
better than the traditional ones,
success has been limited. Many have
concluded that student beliefs are so
“deep-seated” that heavy instructional
costs to unseat them are unavoidable.
However, documented success with
the Modeling method suggests that an
indirect treatment of misconceptions is
likely to be most efficient and effective.
(Wells et al., 1995)
Cognitive scientists have identified
metaphors as a fundamental tool of
Spring 2008  Vol. 17, No. 1
human thought; we use metaphors so
frequently and automatically that we
seldom notice them unless they are
called to our attention. Metaphors are
used to structure our experience and
thereby make it meaningful. A major
objective of teaching should therefore
be to help students “straighten out”
their metaphors. In Modeling, instead
of designing the course to address
specific “naïve conceptions,” the
instructor focuses on helping students
construct appropriate models to
account for the phenomena they study.
When students learn to correctly
identify a physical system, represent
it diagrammatically, and then apply
the model to the situation they are
studying, their misconceptions tend
to fall away (Wells et al., 1995).
A key component of this approach is
that it moves the teacher from the role
of authority figure who provides the
knowledge to that of a coach/facilitator
who helps the students construct their
own understanding. Since students
systematically misunderstand most
of what we tell them (due to the fact
that what they hear is filtered through
their existing mental structures),
the emphasis is placed on student
articulation of the concepts.
Laboratory experiences are centered
on experiments that isolate one
concept, with equipment that enables
students to generate good data reliably.
Students are given no pre-printed
list of instructions for doing these
experiments. Rather, the instructor
introduces the class to the physical
system to be investigated and engages
students in describing the system until
a consensus is achieved. The instructor
elicits from students the appropriate
dependent and independent variables
to characterize the system. After
obtaining reasoned defenses from
the students for selection of these
The Modeling method
stresses developing
a sound conceptual
understanding through
graphical and diagrammatic
representations before
moving on to an algebraic
treatment of problem
solving.
variables, the instructor asks the
students to help design the experiment.
A general procedure is negotiated so
that students have a sense of why
they are doing a particular procedure.
Frequently, multiple procedures arise
as students have access to equipment
that allows them to explore the
relationship in different ways. Lab
teams are then allowed to begin
collecting data.
Students have to make sense of the
experiment themselves. The instructor
must be prepared to allow them to fail.
The apparatus should be available
for several days, should they need it.
Students use spreadsheet and graphing
software to help them organize and
analyze their data. After allowing time
to prepare whiteboards to summarize
their findings, the instructor selects
certain groups to present an oral
account of the group’s experimental
procedure and interpretation. Students
use multiple representations to present
their findings, including concise
English sentences, graphs, diagrams,
and algebraic expressions.
After some initial discomfort with
making these oral presentations,
students generally become more at
ease and gradually develop the skills
of making an effective presentation.
They learn how to defend their
views clearly and concisely. These
13
communication skills are valuable
beyond their immediate application
in the physics classroom.
Assessment
Clearly, one role of assessment
is to ascertain student mastery of
the skills and understanding of the
concepts in the unit. An equally
important role is the feedback it
provides the instructor about his or her
curriculum and teaching methods. The
Modeling method stresses developing
a sound conceptual understanding
through graphical and diagrammatic
representations before moving on to
an algebraic treatment of problem
solving. To be consistent with this
end, the assessment instruments test
students’ ability to interpret graphs and
draw conclusions, as well as to solve
quantitative problems.
In addition to lab write-ups, in which
students report their findings using a
format outlined in the curriculum
materials, the lab practicum is used as a
means to check student understanding.
In the practicum, an application
problem is posed to the class as a
whole. The class has a fixed period
of time to figure out what model is
appropriate to describe the situation,
decide what measurements to make,
collect and analyze the data, and then
prepare a solution to the problem. This
is used as the culminating activity in
the unit and usually helps the students
review key principles for the unit
test.
Whiteboarding is another major
component of assessment. In
whiteboarding, small groups of
students write up their results from
a lab or solutions to a worksheet
problem on a small whiteboard. One
student from the group presents the
whiteboard to the class, responding
to questions from the class and the
14
Students have to account
for everything they do in
solving a problem, ultimately
appealing to models
developed on the basis of
experiments done in class.
instructor. Other group members
are allowed to help if needed. This
is an important assessment tool that
helps the instructor determine how
well students have mastered the
concepts. When one hears fuzzy or
incoherent explanations, one has the
opportunity to help students deal with
their incomplete conceptions before
moving on to the next topic. The two
questions teachers ask most frequently
are, “Why do you say that?” and
“How do you know that?” Students
have to account for everything they
do in solving a problem, ultimately
appealing to models developed on the
basis of experiments done in class.
Instructors trained in the Modeling
method do not take correct statements
for granted; they always press for
explicit articulation of understanding.
This probing by the teacher often
reveals that the student presenter does
not fully understand the concept (even
when answers are correct). The teacher
then has the opportunity to help the
student correct his or her conceptions
through Socratic questioning.
Whiteboarding has other valuable
uses as well. First, it gives students a
chance to reinforce their understanding
of concepts; students often don’t know
exactly what they think until they’ve
heard themselves express the idea.
Second, students are highly motivated
to understand the question they are
assigned to present. No one enjoys
getting up before a group of peers
with nothing to say. Additionally,
during preparation, the instructor has
the opportunity to help students if no
one in the group knows how to do the
problem.
Professional Development
Modeling Instruction places a strong
emphasis on professional development,
both during the workshops and
afterward. The workshops are the
beginning of a process of lifetime
learning. Teachers are encouraged
to network amongst themselves and
to become leaders of reform in their
schools and districts. The ASU web
site and list-serve provide a forum
for communication among Modelers
across the nation and the world.
Since “teachers teach as they have
been taught,” the workshops include
extensive practice in implementing the
curriculum as intended for high school
classes. Participants rotate through
roles of student and instructor as they
practice techniques of guided inquiry
and cooperative learning. Plans and
techniques for raising the level of
discourse in classroom discussions and
student presentations are emphasized.
The workshops immerse teachers
in the physics content of the entire
semester, thereby providing in-depth
remediation for under-prepared
teachers.
The great success and popularity
of the Modeling Workshops has
generated an overwhelming demand
for additional courses. In response to
this demand, in 2001 ASU approved
a new graduate program to support
sustained professional development of
high school physics teachers. Modeling
Workshops are the foundation of the
program, which can lead to a Master
of Natural Science (MNS) degree.
The National Science Education
Science Educator
Standards (NSES) emphasize that
“coherent and integrated programs”
supporting “lifelong professional
development” of science teachers are
essential for significant reform. They
state that “The conventional view of
professional development for teachers
needs to shift from technical training
for specific skills to opportunities for
intellectual professional growth.” The
MNS program at ASU is designed to
meet that need.
Evidence of Effectiveness
Evaluation of Physics Instruction.
The Force Concept Inventory (FCI)
was developed to compare the
effectiveness of alternative methods
of physics instruction (Halloun et al.,
1985a, Hestenes et al., 1992). It has
become the most widely used and
influential instrument for assessing
the effectiveness of introductory
physics instruction, and has been cited
as producing the most convincing
hard evidence of the need to reform
traditional physics instruction (Hake,
1998).
The FCI assesses students’
conceptual understanding of the
force concept, the key concept in
mechanics. It consists of 30 multiple
choice questions, but there is one
crucial difference between the FCI
questions and traditional multiple-
choice items: distracters are designed
to elicit misconceptions known from
the research base. A student must have
a clear understanding of one of six
fundamental aspects of the Newtonian
force concept in order to select the
correct response. The FCI reveals
misconceptions that students bring
as prior knowledge to a class, and it
measures the conceptual gains of a
class as a whole. The FCI is research-
grounded, normed with thousands
Spring 2008  Vol. 17, No. 1
of students at diverse institutions.
It is the product of many hours of
interviews that validated distracters,
and it has been subjected to intense
peer review.
Including the survey by Hake
(1998), we have FCI data on some
30,000 students of 1000 physics
teachers in high schools, colleges
and universities, throughout the
world. This large data base presents
a highly consistent picture, showing
that the FCI provides statistically
reliable measures of student concept
understanding in mechanics. Results
strongly support the following general
conclusions:
• Before physics instruction, students
hold naive beliefs about motion and
force that are incompatible with
Newtonian concepts.
• Such beliefs are a major determi-
nant of student performance in
introductory physics.
• Traditional (lecture-demonstration)
physics instruction induces only a
small change in student beliefs. This
result is largely independent of the
instructor’s knowledge, experience
and teaching style.
• Much greater changes in student
beliefs can be induced with
instructional methods derived
from educational research in, for
example, cognition, alternative
conceptions, classroom discourse,
and cooperative learning.
These conclusions can be quantified.
The FCI is best used as a pre/post
diagnostic. One way to quantify
pre/post gains is to calculate the
normalized gain (Hake, 1998). This is
the actual gain (in percentage) divided
by the total possible gain (also in
percentage). Thus, normalized gain =
(%post - %pre)/(100 - %pre). Hence,
the normalized gain can range from
zero (no gain) to 1 (greatest possible
gain). This method of calculating the
gains normalizes the index, so that
gains of courses at different levels
can be compared, even if their pretest
scores differ widely.
A challenge in physics
education research for more
than a decade has been to
identify essential conditions
for learning Newtonian
physics and thereby devise
more effective teaching
methods.
From pre/post course FCI scores of
14 traditional courses in high schools
and colleges, Hake found a mean
normalized gain of 23%. In contrast,
for 48 courses using interactive
engagement teaching methods (minds-
on always, and hands-on usually),
he found a mean normalized gain of
48%. The difference is much greater
than a standard deviation––a highly
significant result. This would indicate
that traditional instruction fails badly,
and moreover, that this failure cannot
be attributed to inadequacies of the
students because some alternative
methods of instruction can do
much better. A challenge in physics
education research for more than a
decade has been to identify essential
conditions for learning Newtonian
physics and thereby devise more
effective teaching methods. Modeling
Instruction resulted from pursuing this
challenge. Results from using the FCI
to assess Modeling Instruction are
given below.
15
How effective is modeling instruction?
Figure 1 summarizes data from a
nationwide sample of 7500 high school
physics students who participated in
Leadership Modeling Workshops from
1995 to 1998. Teachers gave the FCI
to their classes as a baseline posttest
when they were teaching traditionally
(before their first Modeling
Workshop), and as a pretest
and posttest thereafter. 80
FCI means scores (%)
The average FCI pretest
score was about 26%, slightly 60
above the random guessing
level of 20%. Figure 1 40
shows that traditional high
school instruction (lecture, 20
demonstration, and standard
laboratory activities) has little
Traditional
impact on student beliefs,
with an average FCI posttest
score of 42%, well below the 60%
score which, for empirical reasons,
can be regarded as a threshold in
understanding Newtonian mechanics.
This corresponds to a normalized gain
of 22%, in agreement with Hake’s
results.
After their first year of teaching
with the Modeling method, posttest
scores for 3394 students of 66 novice
modelers were about 10 percentage
points higher, as shown in Fig. 1.
Students of expert modelers do much
better. For 11 teachers identified
as expert modelers after two years
in the program, posttest scores for
647 students averaged 69%. This
corresponds to a normalized gain of
56%, considerably more than double
the gain under traditional instruction.
After two years in the program, gains
for under-prepared teachers were
comparable to gains in one year for
well-prepared teachers. Subsequent
data have confirmed all these results
for 20,000 students (Hestenes, 2000).
Thus, student gains in understanding
16
under expert modeling instruction
are more than doubled compared to
traditional instruction.
Student FCI gains for 100 Arizona
teachers who took Modeling
Workshops were almost as high as
those for leading teachers nationwide,
even though three-fourths of the
Post test
Pre-test
69
52
42
26 26 29
Novice Expert
Modelers Modelers
participating Arizona teachers do not
have a degree in physics. Teachers who
implement the Modeling method most
fully have the highest student posttest
FCI mean scores and gains.
External evaluation of Modeling
Instruction. The Modeling Instruction
Program was assessed by Prof. Frances
Lawrenz, an independent external
evaluator for the National Science
Foundation. We quote at length from
the four page report on her July 22,
1998 site visit, because it describes
the character of the workshops very
well.
“This site visit was one of several
over the past four years to sites
in the modeling project … I had
the opportunity to observe the
participants working in their concept
groups and presenting to the full
group. I also interviewed most of
the participants, either as part of
a small group or individually, and
interviewed two coordinators of the
workshop … The workshop appears
to me to be a resounding success.
My observations revealed a very
conscientious, dedicated, and well-
informed group of teachers actively
involved in discussions about the
most effective ways to present physics
concepts to students. They were doing
a marvelous job of combining what
they knew about how children learn
with what they knew about physics
and the modeling approach. The
discussions were very rich.”
“The interviews confirmed my
observations about the nature of
the group. All the participants were
articulate about physics instruction
and the modeling approach. The
participants reported being pleased
with everything that was happening
at the workshop and spoke in glowing
terms about the facilitators. The
participants felt that the workshop
was well run and that the facilitators
were extremely knowledgeable about
how best to teach physics. They also
commented that the group itself was
an excellent resource. They all could
help each other.”
“I have almost never seen such
overwhelming and consistent
support for a teaching approach. It
is especially surprising within the
physics community, which is known
for its critical analysis and slow
acceptance of innovation. In short,
the modeling approach presented by
the project is sound and deserves to
be spread nationally.”
Recognition by U.S. Department of
Education. In September 2000, the
U.S. Department of Education
announced that the Modeling
Instruction Program at Arizona State
University is one of seven K-12
educational technology programs
designated as exemplary or promising,
out of 134 programs submitted to the
Science Educator

The Modeling method has
a proven track record of
improving student learning.
agency’s Expert Panel. Selections
were based on the following criteria:
(l) Quality of Program, (2) Educational
Significance, (3) Evidence of
Effectiveness, and (4) Usefulness
to Others. In January 2001, a U.S.
Department of Education Expert Panel
in Science recognized the Modeling
Instruction Program as one of only
two exemplary K-12 science programs
out of 27 programs evaluated (U.S.
Department of Education, 2001).
Long-term implementation. In a
follow-up survey of Leadership
Modeling Workshop graduates,
between one and three years after
they had completed the program,
75% of them responded immediately
and enthusiastically. More than 90%
reported that the Workshops had a
highly significant influence on the
way they teach. 45% reported that
their use of Modeling Instruction has
continued at the same level, while
another 50% reported an increase.
(Hestenes, 2000).
Final Thoughts
Instead of relying on lectures and
textbooks, the Modeling Instruction
program emphasizes active student
construction of conceptual and
mathematical models in an interactive
learning community. Students are
engaged with simple scenarios to
learn to model the physical world.
Modeling cultivates physics teachers
as school experts on the use of
technology in science teaching, and
encourages teacher-to-teacher training
in science teaching methods, thereby
Spring 2008  Vol. 17, No. 1
providing schools and school districts
with a valuable resource for broader
reform.
Data on some 20,000 students show
that those who have been through the
Modeling program typically achieve
twice the gains on a standard test of
conceptual understanding as students
who are taught conventionally.
Further, the Modeling method is
successful with students who have
not traditionally done well in physics.
Experienced modelers report increased
enrollments in physics classes,
parental satisfaction, and enhanced
achievement in college courses across
the curriculum.
Carmela Minaya of Honolulu,
NSTA Shell Science Teaching
Awardee, wrote: “The beauty of
Modeling Instruction is that it creates
an effective framework for teachers
to incorporate many of the national
standards into their teaching without
having to consciously do so, because
the method innately addresses many
of the various standards. In a certain
course, different students may learn
the same material, except they never
learn it in exactly the same way. This
method appeals to all learning styles.
Students cling to whatever works for
them. Although the content is identical
yearly, no two students ever are. The
classroom becomes a dynamic center
for student owned learning.”
References
[All references by David Hestenes are
online in pdf format at http://modeling.
asu.edu/R&E/Research.html]
U.S. Department of Education (2001).
2001 Exemplary and Promising Sci-
ence Programs. Retrieved Dec. 10,
2007 at http://www.ed.gov/offices/
OERI/ORAD/KAD/expert_panel/
math-science.html
Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engage-
ment vs. traditional methods: A six
thousand-student survey of mechan-
ics test data for introductory physics
courses. American Journal of Physics
66, 64-74.
Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. (1985a). Initial
knowledge state of college physics
students, American Journal of Physics
53, 1043-1055.
Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. (1985b).
Common sense concepts about mo-
tion, American Journal of Physics 53,
1056-1065.
Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling
theory of physics instruction, American
Journal of Physics 55, 440-454.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer,
G. (1992). Force concept inventory, The
Physics Teacher 30, 141-158.
Hestenes, D. (1997). Modeling methodol-
ogy for physics teachers. In E. Redish
& J. Rigden (Eds.) The changing role
of the physics department in modern
universities. American Institute of
Physics. Part II, 935-957.
Hestenes, D. (2000). Findings of the mod-
eling workshop project, 1994 - 2000.
One section of an NSF final report.
Online in pdf format at http://modeling.
asu.edu/R&E/Research.html.
Wells, M., Hestenes, D., & Swackhamer,
G. (1995). A modeling method for high
school physics instruction, American
Journal of Physics 63, 606-619.
Jane Jackson is co-director, Modeling
Instruction Program, Department of Physics,
Arizona State University, PO Box 871504,
Tempe, AZ 85287. Correspondence pertaining
to this article may be sent to Jane.Jackson@
asu.edu.
Larry Dukerich is director of Professional
Development in Science, Center for Research
in Education in Science, Mathematics,
Engineering, and Technology (CRESMET),
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
David Hestenes is distinguished research
professor, Department of Physics, Arizona
State University, Tempe, AZ
17
ALTERNATE ASSESSMENTS

Students become sports broadcasters for PBS. They must compose a voice-over dub
for a sports video of their choice. Their video must convey the excitement of the
sport and the physics principles observed. To gain knowledge and understanding of
physics principles necessary to meet this challenge, students work collaboratively on
activities in which they apply concepts of Newton's laws, forces, friction, and
momentum to sporting events.

Students consider themselves members of an engineering team that is developing a

system that will communicate from one room in the school to another. The challenge
is to send and receive, then measure the speed of the transmission. The final report
must describe both the design and the physics of the system and a discussion of how
the system is better than the methods explored in the chapter. To gain
understanding of science principles necessary to meet this challenge, students work
collaboratively on activities with codes, electricity and magnetism, sound waves, and
light rays. They also use the iterative process of engineering design; refining designs
based on effectiveness and physics concepts.

Students are challenged to design or build a safety device, or system, for protecting
automobile, airplane, bicycle, motorcycle, or train passengers. New laws, increased
awareness, and improved safety systems are explored as students work on this
challenge. They are also encouraged to design improvements to existing systems
and to find ways to minimize harm caused by accidents. To meet this challenge,
students engage in collaborative activities that explore motions and forces and the
principles of design technology.

Students are presented with a “myth” or story about some physical situation (For
example, “The winner of a Tug-of-war is the strongest team.”) They will work in
teams to design, build, run, and analyze experiments that will test the physical ideas
central to the myth. Students will then extend their experiments, exploring the
physical limits of the experiment and applying it to real-world situations. Teams will
then present their findings to the class (and to the world!) in the form of a
“Mythbusters” video and make conclusions as to whether the situation described by
the myth is physically plausible or even possible.

Students will design and build their own musical instrument from available household
items. Students must analyze the tonal quality for the notes played and make a
comparison to the tonal quality of several musical instruments. To gain
understanding of science principles necessary to meet this challenge, students work
collaboratively on activities to learn about wave motion, standing waves, sound
waves, resonance, timbre, and hearing. They also learn to use the iterative process
of engineering design, refining designs based on the physics they learn.
Dear Physics Students and Parents,

During this year, you will be learning information related to many topics in physics. In this course,
a non-traditional criterion-based assessment system is used. Rather than using a point system to
record scores on various assignments, quizzes and tests, you must demonstrate your level of
proficiency on various learning goals. For example, instead of getting one grade for a worksheet
that may cover many topics, you will be scored on individual learning goals such as, “I can
interpret/draw position vs. time graphs for an object moving with constant velocity.” Rubrics that
list the learning goals and define achievement levels of each will be provided to you and used for
assessment.

Grades will be assigned based on descriptors of achievement only. Grades will not be affected by
issues such as lateness of work, effort, attitude, participation, and attendance. Those factors will be
reported separately. Even though there will be many opportunities for cooperative learning, you
will never be assigned group grades.

New information showing additional learning will replace old information. Grades will reflect the
trend in most recent learning. You may re-attempt assessments provided that you have
documented an effort to engage in additional learning (e.g., tutoring, additional practice, test
corrections, etc.). In addition, an alternative assessment may be accepted if the work is pre-
contracted between you (the student) and me (the teacher). There is no deadline for
reassessments. Any grade changes due to reassessments made after the quarter ends will be
reflected in the final year-end grade.

For each learning goal and unit of study, you will be scored using the following scale:

4 = Advanced. Indicators include:

• I understand the content/skills completely and can explain them in detail.
• I can explain/teach the skills to another student.
• I have high confidence on how to do the skills.
• I can have a conversation about the skills.
• I can independently demonstrate extensions of my knowledge.
• I can create analogies and/or find connections between different areas within the sciences or
between science and other areas of study.
• My responses demonstrate in-depth understanding of main ideas and of related details.

3 = Proficient. Indicators include:

• I understand the important things about the content/skills.
• I have confidence on how to do the skills on my own most of the time, but I need to continue
practicing some parts that still give me problems.
• I need my handouts and notes once in a while.
• I am proficient at describing terms and independently connecting them with concepts.
• I understand not just the “what,” but can correctly explain the “how” and “why” of scientific
processes.
• My responses demonstrate in-depth understanding of main ideas.

2 = Developing. Indicators include:

• I have a general understanding of the content/skills, but I’m also confused about some important
parts.
• I need some help from my teacher (one-on-one or small group) to do the skills correctly
• I do not feel confident enough to do the skills on my own
• I need my handouts and notebook most of the time.
• I can correctly identify concepts and/or define vocabulary; however I cannot not make
connections among ideas and/or independently extend my own learning.
• My responses demonstrate basic understanding of some main ideas, but significant information is
missing.
1 = Beginning. Indicators include:
• I need lots of help from my teacher (one-on-one).
• I have low confidence on how to do the skills and need more instruction.
• I need my handouts and science notebook at all times.
• I do not understand the concept/skills.
• I cannot correctly identify concepts and/or define vocabulary.
• I cannot make connections among ideas or extend the information.
• My responses lack detail necessary to demonstrate basic understanding.

0 = No Basis
I do not provide any responses for which a judgment can be made about my understanding.

Near the end of each quarter, you (the student) will meet with me (the teacher) individually to
discuss your progress and to assign a quarterly grade. Quarterly grades will be given as follows:

98% 78%
Above Standard Approaching Standard
95% I am advanced in at least one unit of 75% I am developing in most units of study
study and proficient in all others. and proficient in at least one.
92% 72%

88% 68% Far Below Standard

I am basic in most units of study
At Standard and proficient in at least one.
85% 65%
I am proficient in most units of study.
Not Meeting Any Standard
82% F
I am not proficient in any unit of study.

Year-end course grades will be assigned the same way, looking at the final achievement on the
entire year’s worth of learning goals.

Please sign below to indicate you have read and understand this grading system. If you have any
questions, please email me at fnoschese@klschools.org, leave a voicemail at 763-7200 x9512, or
simply write them in the box below. Thank you.

I have read and understand the criterion-based grading system used in

Mr. Noschese’s class.

Student Name: _________________________________

Student Signature: _________________________________ Date: ___________

Parent Signature: _________________________________ Date: ___________

Questions/Comments:
THE BUGGY LAB

I. PROBLEM
Design an experiment to determine the relationship between the
position of a toy buggy and time.

You have access to rulers, meter sticks, tape measures, and

stopwatches.

II. DESIGN
___ Describe your experimental design with both a labeled diagram
and a verbal description.
___ State what the independent and dependent variables are.
___ Include how will you vary and measure your chosen parameters.

III. DATA
___ Perform the experiment and record your measurements in an
appropriate table.

IV. ANALYSIS
___ Graph and determine the numerical model for your data set.

V. CONCLUSION
___ What pattern did you find from your observations? Write a verbal
and mathematical description.
___ What is the physical significance of the slope of the graph?
___ What is the physical significance of the y-intercept?
___ Turn your numerical model into a general model.

You will be assessed using the rubric on the back of this page.
 BUGGY LAB RUBRIC

LEARNING GOALS 0 - MISSING 1 - BEGINNING 2 - DEVELOPING 3- PROFICIENT

I can design a reliable My experiment does not My experiment may not Some important aspects of My experiment might yield
experiment that investigate the yield any interesting the phenomenon will not be interesting patterns relevant
investigates the phenomenon. patterns. observable. to the investigation of the
phenomenon phenomenon.
I can decide what My parameters are Only some of my My parameters are relevant. My parameters are relevant
parameters are to be irrelevant. parameters are relevant. However, independent and and independent and
measured and can dependent variables are not dependent variables are
identify independent and identified. identified.
dependent variables
I can communicate the My diagrams are missing My diagrams are present My diagrams and/or my My diagrams and/or my
details of an and/or my experimental but unclear and/or my experimental procedure are experimental procedure are
experimental procedure procedure is missing or experimental procedure is present but with minor clear and complete.
clearly and completely extremely vague. present but important omissions or vague details.
details are missing.
I can record and My data are either absent or Some important data are All important data are All important data are
represent data in a incomprehensible. absent or incomprehensible. present, but recorded in a present, organized, and
meaningful way way that requires some recorded clearly.
effort to comprehend.
I can represent data No attempt is made to My graph has major My graph has minor My graph is complete and
graphically and use the represent the data errors/omissions or my errors/omissions or my correct and my numerical
graph to make graphically. numerical models are numerical models are models are written
predictions. missing. written incorrectly. correctly.
I can identify a pattern in No attempt is made to My pattern described is My pattern has minor errors My pattern represents the
the data search for a pattern. irrelevant or inconsistent or omissions. relevant trend in the data.
with my data.
I can represent a pattern No attempt is made to My mathematical expression My mathematical expression My mathematical expression
mathematically and represent a pattern does not represent the represents the trend, but I represents the trend, and I
provide physical meaning mathematically. trend or I do not provide provide unreasonable provide reasonable physical
to the slope and y- any physical meaning to the physical meaning to the meaning to the slope and
intercept. slope and intercept. slope and intercept. intercept.
 1ST QUARTER LAB SKILLS
LEARNING GOALS

ASSIGNMENT/ASSESSMENT & DATE:

INTERIM PROGRESS

QUARTER FINAL
LAB.1 – I can identify the hypothesis to be
tested, phenomenon to be investigated, or
the problem to be solved.
LAB.2 – I can design a reliable experiment
that tests the hypothesis, investigates the
phenomenon, or solves the problem.
LAB.3 – I can communicate the details of an
experimental procedure clearly and
completely.

LAB.4 – I can revise the hypothesis when

necessary.

LAB.5 – I can decide what parameters are to

be measured and can identify independent
and dependent variables.

LAB.6 – I can record and represent data in a

meaningful way.

LAB.7 – I can analyze data appropriately.

LAB.8 – I can represent data graphically and

use the graph to make predictions.

LAB.9 – I can identify a pattern in the data.

LAB.10 – I can represent a pattern

mathematically and provide physical meaning
to the slope and y-intercept.

UNIT SCORE
 MOMENTUM CONSERVATION AND TRANSFER
LEARNING GOALS

ASSIGNMENT/ASSESSMENT & DATE:

INTERIM PROGRESS

QUARTER FINAL
MOM.1 – I can determine whether
interactions are present for a given situation
by considering the motion of objects.
MOM.2 – I can calculate the momentum of
an object/system with direction and proper
units.

MOM.3 – I can draw an interaction diagram

and specify the system and the surroundings.

MOM.4 – I can draw and analyze momentum

bar charts.

MOM.5 – I can use momentum conservation

to solve different problems.

MOM.6 – I can apply the property of

reciprocity to the interactions between
objects.
MOM.7 – I can compute the momentum
transfer into/out of an object/system
(impulse) with direction and proper units.
MOM.8 – I know the relationship between
average force and the rate of momentum
transfer.
MOM.9 – I know the relationship between
average force and time for a given
momentum transfer (impulse).

MOM.10 – I can use momentum transfer

(impulse) to solve different problems.

UNIT SCORE
 ‰1ST ‰2ND ‰3RD ‰4TH INTERIM PROGRESS
LEARNING GOALS

UNIT SCORE

INTERIM GRADE: %

The learning goals I need to improve most are: _________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

What I can do to improve: _________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

The learning goals I excel in are: ____________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Reasons why I excel in these areas: _________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Student Name: _________________________________

Student Signature: _________________________________ Date: ___________

Parent Signature: _________________________________ Date: ___________

Questions/Comments:
 ‰1ST ‰2ND ‰3RD ‰4TH QUARTER FINAL
LEARNING GOALS

UNIT SCORE

QUARTER GRADE: %

The learning goals I need to improve most are: _________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

What I can do to improve: _________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

The learning goals I excel in are: ____________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Reasons why I excel in these areas: _________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Student Name: _________________________________

Student Signature: _________________________________ Date: ___________

Parent Signature: _________________________________ Date: ___________

Questions/Comments: