Katelin A. Fields M.S. Candidate Willodean D.S. Burton Ph.D. Sheila F. Pirkle Ed.D.

1. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MODELING METHOD PEDAGOGY IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TN SECONDARY BIOLOGY CLASSROOMS Katelin A. Fields M.S. Candidate Willodean D.S. Burton Ph.D. Sheila F. Pirkle Ed.D. Austin Peay State University

2. Introduction • Importance of pedagogy -- Biology has traditionally been viewed as a difficult subject to teach and comprehend. -- Abstract ideas (Proth, 2006)

3. Modeling Instruction History David Hestenes & Malcolm Wells Tenets of Modeling: Models are created to represent a system; models focus on particular aspects of the system in order to explain phenomena while also developing the conceptual knowledge required. Students are actively engaged in identifying variables and relationships within the model, then testing those ideas. This fosters a critical thought process and a well-developed conceptual understanding of the topic. (Wells, 1995)

4. Components of a Modeling Classroom • Student centered inquiry • active engagement • lab-based • scientific practice • Collaborative discourse • White-boarding • Teacher elaboration (Wells, 1995)

5. Modeling Cycle Two Stages: • Modeling Development • Modeling Deployment

6. Objectives • Examine and compare predicted v. observed TCAP End of Course (EOC biology scores of modeling v. non-modeling classrooms in six Clarksville, TN high schools • Observations and interviews

7. Hypothesis • H0: There is no significant difference between the end of course scores of modeling and non-modeling classes. • HA: Students learning in an inverted curriculum and modeling classroom will achieve higher levels of learning and formative thinking, thus producing higher end of course test scores than traditional classrooms.

9. Montgomery County, TN (http://en.wikipedia.org, 2006) • Land area in square miles, 2010 539.18 • Population, 2011 estimate 176,619 • Female persons, 2011 50.9% • Language other than English spoken at home, percent age 5+, 2007-2011 8.6% • High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007-2011 90.2% • Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007-2011 22.7% • Veterans, 2007-2011 23,990 • Persons below poverty level, percent, 2007-2011 14.8% (US Census, 2011)

10. Montgomery County, TN • Pilot trial in 2010/2011 • By 2011/2012, six schools had implemented biology modeling (Argnonne, 2010)

11. Inverted Curriculum • Science Requirements for graduation -Biology -Chemistry or Physics -One additional science credit

12. Pilot PWC Admission Criteria *Select a heterogeneous group of solid students who may have low abstract reasoning and need concrete learning experiences and who are also taking Algebra I. *Students who made 14 or higher on the science reasoning EXPLORE have the greatest success rate. (If students, who made lower than 14 are placed in the class, make sure they make up no more than 25% of the class.) *Students with poor attendance should not be considered for PWC. *Plan a maximum of 2-3 sections per school with each section having no less than 20 students

13. School Level Requirements *PWC teachers are certified in chemistry or physics. *Chemistry teachers are certified in chemistry. *Biology teachers are certified in biology.

14. Professional Development • Two weeks of training for three summers • hosted by: Clarksville High School • funded by: Math Science Partnership (MSP) grants • Monthly after school modeling meetings

15. Hypothesis • H0: There is no significant difference between the end of course scores of modeling and non-modeling classes. • HA: Students learning in an inverted curriculum and modeling classroom will achieve higher levels of learning and formative thinking, thus producing higher end of course test scores than traditional classrooms.

16. Research Methods • IRB approval • Participation in this study was voluntary. • The study examined: • One modeling and non-modeling teacher/class from one Clarksville high school for the 2010/2011 school year • One modeling and one non-modeling teacher/class from each of the six Clarksville high schools for the 2011/2012 school year

17. Methods • Class attendance records • Classroom observations • Observation checklist • Teacher interviews • Assessment of school-wide demographics • Predicted and Observed EOC scores • Statistical analysis: • One-way ANOVA • Student t-Test

18. Results

19. 2010/2011 Data Analysis

20. 2011/2012 Data Analysis

23. Statistical Data • ANOVA (One-Way; α= .05) • Compared modeling classes of six schools • There is not a significant difference between modeling biology EOC scores in 6 schools. • Compared non-modeling classes of six schools • There is a significant difference between non-modeling biology EOC scores in 6 schools. • Grouped modeling and non-modeling together for each school, then compared six schools • There is a significant difference between the modeling/non-modeling biology EOC scores for each high school.

25. Summary of Findings • In every modeling class, the average predicted EOC score was higher than the predicted EOC score of their non-modeling cohorts • Modeling classes in schools 2, 4, & 5 did not meet or exceed expected gains, while 1, 3, & 6 did. • Non-modeling classes in schools 1 & 2 did not meet or exceed expected gains, while 3, 4, 5, & 6 did. • Lowest modeling gains were in schools 4 and 5, these teachers also had the lowest student engagement percentage and the least modeling fidelity of the six modeling teachers.

26. Summary of Findings • Of all 12 teachers, school 6 non-modeling had the highest absences (8.72 per student), yet this teacher has the 2nd highest gains (7.9) of the 6 non-modeling teachers • School 3 had: • The lowest predicted scores for non-modeling • Second lowest predicted scores for modeling • Lowest overall graduation rate • Tied for overall lowest attendance rate • Highest percentage of suspensions and expulsions of the six schools

27. Teacher Interview Results • Avg years of teaching experience for modeling: 15.5 years • Avg years of teaching experience for non-modeling: 9.8 years • All teachers had a background in a biology field

28. Strengths -Depth of understanding -Connections between concepts -Age of students -White-boarding -Student discovery leading to increased material retention -Development of critical thinking skills Challenges -Chaotic at times -Novelty -Students not receiving honors credit for honors work -Scarcity of time -Student participation Interview: Strengths/ Challenges of Modeling Instruction

29. Strengths -Proven years of effectiveness -Familiarity -More time efficient Challenges -Too much memorization; not enough critical thinking -Students have not had chemistry like modeling students have -Less hands on -Difficult to keep students attention Interview: Strengths/ Challenges of Non-modeling Instruction

30. Future Research/ Recommendations • Further work could be done to analyze 2012/2013 scores in comparison to 2010-2012 school year scores as well as measure teacher fidelity to instruction • Modeling techniques are well-presented to teachers to best prepare them for modeling fidelity.

31. Acknowledgements This research was made possible by the APSU Center of Excellence in Field Biology, Clarksville Montgomery County School System, and APSU College of Education & STEM Center. A special thanks is extended to Dr. Willodean Burton, Dr. Shelia Pirkle, Dr. Chad Brooks, and Dr. Karen Meisch at APSU, Dr. Tom Cheatham at MTSU, Mrs. Dale Rudolph and Dr. Kimi Sucharski at Clarksville-Montgomery County School System, and Dr. Jane Jackson at Arizona State University.

32. References Argonne (2010). Argonne's Midwest Center for Structural Genomics deposits 1,000th protein structure, [Online image]. Retrieved November 27, 2012 from http://www.fotopedia.com/items/flickr-3762337272 DeHaan, R. (2005). The impending revolution in undergraduate science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology 14 (2): 253-269. Jackson, J., Dukerich, L., & Hestenes, D. (2008). Modeling instruction: An effective model for science education. Science Educator 17(1): 10-17. Klymkowsky, M. W., Garvin-Doxas, K., & Zeilik, M. (2003). Bioliteracy and teaching efficacy: What biologists can learn from physicists. Cell Biology Education 2(3): 155-161. Lawson, Anton E. & Renner, John W. (1975). Relations of science subject matter and developmental levels of learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 12 (4): 347- 358. McLaughlin, S. (2003). Effect of modeling instruction on development of proportional reasoning  theoretical background. Retrieved from <http://modeling.asu.edu/modeling-HS.html>. Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education 86: 548–571. Proth (2006). Neo-fern Victorian fern craze, [Online image]. Retrieved November 27, 2012 from <http://www.fotopedia.com/items/flickr-248961104>. United States Department of Commerce. US Census Bureau. (2011). Montgomery County, TN. Retrieved from <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/47/47125.html>. Wells, M., Hestenes D., Swackhamer G. (1995). A modeling method for high school physics instruction. American Journal of Physics 63(7): 606-19. Wu, H., Hsu, Y., & Hwang, F. (2010). Designing a technology-enhanced learning environment to support scientific modeling. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 9(4): 58-65.