62
Portland
Monday afternoon
BH02:
4:30-5 p.m. Modeling in Middle School: NGSS and the
STEM Connection
Invited – Colleen Megowan-Romanowicz, American Modeling Teachers As-
sociation, 2164 E Ellis Drive, Tempe, AZ;
For 20 years Modeling Instruction has helped high school physics students
to ask questions, develop and use models, plan and carry out investiga-
tions, analyze and interpret data, use mathematics and technology to do
computational thinking, engage in arguments from evidence, evaluate and
communicate information...in short, to do science as scientists do. With
the advent of the NGSS these practices are expected to frame the way
science is done by ALL children at ALL grade levels. I will describe a new
program of Modeling Instruction-based content courses for middle school
science and mathematics teachers developed and piloted over the past four
years. These courses are designed to help teachers re-model their teaching
practice to incorporate the science and engineering practices mentioned
above, improve their disciplinary content knowledge, and ground their
teaching in engaging STEM applications.
BH03:
5-5:10 p.m. Localized Physics Reform in a Cogenerative
Modeling Learning Environment
Contributed – Natan Samuels, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th
St., Miami, FL 33199;
Renee Michelle Goertzen, Eric Brewe, Laird Kramer, Florida International
University
We describe research into CMPLE—the Cogenerative Mediation Process
for Learning Environments. CMPLE is a formative process that physics
instructors have used to facilitate cogenerative dialogues, support local
reform, and guide their changes in practice. Based on their collective learn-
ing preferences, students and instructors negotiate, develop, and imple-
ment changes to their classroom behaviors and structure. We have traced
a high school Physics Modeling instructor’s semester-long implementation
of CMPLE through data sources such as classroom videos and artifacts,
as well as interviews. The instructor’s changes in practice developed from
her expanding understanding of her students’ preferences and classroom
experiences. She also described a greater understanding of the modeling
process. Our Activity Theory-based analysis has identified the instructor’s
general change process as 1) questioning about areas of concern, 2) analyz-
ing the current state of affairs, 3) constructing a new model of behavior, 4)
implementing the new model, and 5) evaluating changes.
BH04:
5:10-5:20 p.m. Interactive and Constant Force Models
Discourse for High School Freshmen and Seniors
Contributed – Igor V. Proleiko, McKinley Classical Leadership Academy, 2156
Russell, St. Louis, MO 63104;
Modeling Instruction could be used with both high school freshmen
and seniors. The process for model deployment is the same, however the
structure and scaffolding differs somewhat between the level of the class.
The example of questioning for different classes is to be presented and
discussed.
BH05:
5:20-5:30 p.m. Whole Class “Board” Meetings in
Modeling-based Introductory University Physics
Contributed – Brant Hinrichs, Drury University, 729 N. Drury Lane, Spring-
field, MO 65802;
This talk describes whole-class whiteboard meetings and gives examples of
how they are used in a calculus-based introductory physics course taught
using modeling instruction. Students in one section of the course are
divided into six groups of four to five students each. Each group creates
a solution to the same problem on a small whiteboard. The groups then
form a large circle in the center of the classroom with their whiteboards on
the ground, resting against their knees, facing out to the rest of the group.
The instructor is outside the circle and interjects only rarely, if at all. The
goal of the discussion is to come to a consensus on the “best” answer to the
given problem. Examples are given of some of the amazing conversations
students can have in such a format. Students are learning the epistemology
of science by actively engaging in it every class.
Session BI: Panel – Teaching
Controversial Topics
Location: Broadway I/II
Sponsor: Committee on Science Education for the Public
Co-Sponsor: Committee on Space Science and Astronomy
Date: Monday, July 15
Time: 4–6 p.m.
Presider: Stacy Palen
Grand societal challenges such as climate change, peak energy,
and hydraulic fracturing require thoughtful, creative, and consid-
erate discussions. Join our panel to discuss methods to approach
controversial subjects in the classroom.
BI01:
4-6 p.m. When Science Says No
Panel – Tom Murphy, UCSD, 9500 Gilman Drive, MC 0424, La Jolla, CA
92093-0424;
Our society relishes futuristic projections of Utopian life, often set in space.
Students are especially prone to such outlooks, informed in no small part
by virtual/escapist experiences provided by a wide array of media. The
grittier truth is that the present century brings grand-scale challenges
unprecedented in the human experience as unchecked growth interests
collide with a finite Earth. This will likely show up in many domains at
once, including energy availability, water, food, population, and climate
stability. Inevitably, the public will sense a shift in the aggregate message of
science from what “is” possible toward what “isn’t.” In the classroom, we
can prepare students to understand fundamental aspects of the challenges
we face via estimation/order-of-magnitude quantitative analysis, aided by
stark--and sometimes amusing--extrapolations, analogies, surveys, and
thought-provoking millennial-scale perspectives.
BI02:
4-6 p.m. Teaching Controversial Topics in Physics
Courses
Panel – Art Hobson, University of Arkansas, Department of Physics, Fayette-
ville, AR 72701;
The conceptual physics course I developed in 1975 at the University of
Arkansas is now taught to nearly 1000 introductory non-science students
per year. It is based on my textbook, “Physics: Concepts & Connections”
(Pearson/Addison-Wesley, 5th edition 2010), a general introductory
conceptual physics textbook emphasizing physics-related social topics
and modern physics. Students say they especially enjoy the social topics.
The scientific process, according to which we learn via evidence and
reason, is the frequently-recurring theme. Other social topics, in order of
appearance, are pseudoscience, transportation and energy, electric power
plants, exponential growth, ozone depletion, global warming, radioactive
dating, the geological ages, biological effects of radiation, technological
risk, nuclear weapons, nuclear terrorism, the energy future, nuclear power,
fossil fuels, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. Many of these bear on
controversial religious and political issues. I will discuss how I deal with
such controversies.
BI03:
4-6 p.m. Advocating for Controversial Science Topics
in Congress
Panel – Aline D. McNaull, American Institute of Physics, One Physics Ellipse,
College Park, MD 20740;
Policymakers and their staff rely on the science community to provide
resources and advice on a wide range of science topics. Some scientific
subjects, such as climate change and evolution, have become the source of
significant political debate. In this talk I will address how science advocates
approach Members of Congress regarding research funding and sup-
port for topics that have been deemed politically “questionable.” When
describing a scientific process, it is important to consider certain phrases
that have been deemed “wrong” to non-science audiences and reflect on
