[vc_row][vc_column][vc_empty_space height=”24px”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1753112120890{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]The Helios Education Foundation recognized Modeling InstructionTM at the Impact Corps 2025 Award Ceremony on July 10, 2025. Helios exists to support postsecondary attainment for all students in Arizona and Florida, with an emphasis on low-income and historically underrepresented communities. This is part of their statement of recognition. “…Modeling Instruction has provided exceptional professional development for Arizona teachers, which has contributed to positive post-secondary outcomes for students in Arizona’s public education system.”
Pictured in the image from left to right are: Jae Chang, Prof. Bob Culbertson (MNS Program Director), Andrew Chapman, Larry Dukerich, Agatha Anderson, Jane Jackson (Co-Director ASU Modeling Instruction Program), Dawn Foley (consultant for ASU’s Decision Center for Educational Excellence), Rich McNamara, Mitch Sweet, Melissa Girmscheid and Justin Sheets. All but Bob Culbertson, Jane Jackson, and Dawn Foley are Modeling Instruction workshop leaders.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”8736″ img_size=”630 x 498″ alignment=”center” css=””][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row fullwidth=”true” fullwidth_content=”false” parallax=”content-moving-fade” css=”.vc_custom_1479793620146{margin-bottom: 0px !important;border-bottom-width: 0px !important;padding-bottom: 0px !important;background-color: #328cc1 !important;}”][vc_column][vc_empty_space][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][mk_chart percent=”22″ bar_color=”#b2b2b2″ line_width=”18″ bar_size=”195″ content_type=”custom_text” custom_text=”22%” custom_text_size=”24″ desc=”Gain with Traditional Instruction” desc_text_size=”20″ desc_color=”#ffffff”][vc_empty_space][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][mk_chart percent=”35″ bar_color=”#767676″ line_width=”18″ bar_size=”195″ content_type=”custom_text” custom_text=”35%” custom_text_size=”24″ desc=”Gain with Novice Modeler” desc_text_size=”20″ desc_color=”#ffffff”][vc_empty_space][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][mk_chart percent=”56″ bar_color=”#1d2731″ line_width=”18″ bar_size=”195″ content_type=”custom_text” custom_text=”56%” custom_text_size=”24″ desc=”Gain with Expert Modeler” desc_text_size=”20″ desc_color=”#ffffff”][vc_empty_space][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][mk_ornamental_title text_color=”#ffffff” font_family=”none” font_size=”28″ font_weight=”bold” ornament_style=”norman-single” ornament_color=”#ffffff”]How effective is modeling instruction?[/mk_ornamental_title][mk_fancy_title color=”#ffffff” size=”20″ font_weight=”500″ font_family=”Raleway” font_type=”google” align=”center” animation=”fade-in”]In comparison to traditional instruction, under expert modeling instruction, high school students average more than two standard deviations higher on a standard instrument for assessing conceptual understanding of physics.[/mk_fancy_title][vc_empty_space][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_empty_space][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1510336854290{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]
The effectiveness of Modeling Instruction in enhancing student learning of physics is being continuously evaluated with well-established standardized instruments. Chief among these instruments is the Force Concept Inventory (FCI). The FCI assesses the effectiveness of mechanics courses in meeting a minimal teaching performance standard: to teach students to reliably discriminate between the applicability of scientific concepts and naive alternatives in common physical situations. Questions on the FCI were designed to be meaningful to students without formal training in mechanics.
The FCI has consistently shown that students bring into their physics courses a wide array of naive beliefs about the motion of physical objects that are incompatible with Newtonian theory. Figure 1 summarizes data from a nationwide sample of 7500 high school physics students involved in the Modeling Workshop Project. The average FCI pretest score is about 26%, slightly above the random guessing level of 20%, and well below the 60% score which, for empirical reasons, can be regarded as the threshold for understanding Newtonian mechanics.
[/vc_column_text][mk_fancy_title color=”#328cc1″ size=”24″ font_weight=”bold” margin_top=”20″ font_family=”none” align=”center”]Figure 1[/mk_fancy_title][vc_row_inner css=”.vc_custom_1479700389832{background-color: #efefef !important;}”][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_empty_space][mk_skill_meter title=”FCI pre-test (Traditional Instruction)” percent=”26″ percent_color=”#767676″ color=”#b2b2b2″][mk_skill_meter title=”FCI post-test (Traditional Instruction)” percent=”42″ color=”#878787″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_empty_space][mk_skill_meter title=”FCI pre-test (Novice Modeler)” percent=”26″ percent_color=”#66a0c1″ color=”#66a0c1″][mk_skill_meter title=”FCI post-test (Novice Modeler)” percent=”52″ percent_color=”#007ac1″ color=”#007ac1″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_empty_space][mk_skill_meter title=”FCI pre-test (Expert Modeler)” percent=”29″ percent_color=”#62758c” color=”#4b6b8c”][mk_skill_meter title=”FCI post-test (Expert Modeler)” percent=”69″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_empty_space][/vc_column][/vc_row]