Modeling Instruction Pedagogy

Deanna,

I'm so glad to hear you are enjoying your workshop!  I too had the same inaccurate perception that modeling instruction was just going to show me how to incorporate more models into my curriculum.  It is SO MUCH MORE.  I have learned more about pedagogy, learning theory, and chemistry in my involvement with the AMTA than I did in any of my pre-service training.  I highly suggest following #modsci, #modchem, and #modphys on twitter to connect with other teachers using Modeling Instruction. 

Michigan is really building a nice size group of science modelers, you should have some wonderful resources close by! 

Deanna wrote about how her experiences at a Modeling Instruction workshop this summer have helped her to address some naïve conceptions about what this approach is about. She recognized that content is just one part of what the workshop has to offer; the major thrust is helping teachers understand the implications of the pedagogy.  Traditional chemistry curricula tend to "help" students by skipping all that nasty stuff about HOW we come to understand the structure of matter and the changes it undergoes, and gets to the WHAT right out of the gate.  This paradigm assumes that if students can successfully do quantitative problem solving to determine the mass of a product formed or how much energy is released during a reaction that they also must have a deep conceptual understanding of nature of matter and how changes occur. There is very little treatment of the evidence used to support the models we currently employ and how we choose one model over another.  Dudley Herron wrote in The Chemistry Classroom (ACS 1996):

“Pick any introductory chemistry text and look at it.  Is it organized according to a logical order or a psychological order? Does it begin with phenomena that are closely related to the experience of students? Does it introduce abstract notions such as atoms, molecules, ideal gases, bonding and kinetic theory only when the student senses a need for some way to explain what he has already observed?  More likely it is developed logically and begins with some tools – the metric system, temperature scales (all of them), perhaps some chemical symbols and a few equations, some math skills, and significant digits – then proceeds with atoms in all of their glory, molecules and bonding.  This plodding takes a spell, but it certainly seems worthwhile because, once it is done, the chemical changes that we want students to see and to know are much easier to talk about.

The problem is that students cannot see where this information is leading, and it does not seem logical at all to them.  “Why are you asking me to do all of these weird things?” is their unspoken question.  We see the need for what we are asking them to learn, but the beginning students do not. In fact, they cannot.”

By contrast each unit in the Modeling approach to chemistry begins with some phenomena that we want students to try to make sense of.  We propose a model that could help account for the observed behavior and then test its applicability to related phenomena.  When the model no longer does a good job, we discuss how it ought to be changed to do a more adequately explain or predict the behavior of matter. Thus, we start with the simplest model of the atom (a simple BB - essentially a Democritus atom), and add features as needed.  One logical consequence of this is that we examine phenomena that require a simpler model earlier in the course and save more robust models until they are needed.  One does not need a Bohr model of the atom in order to understand Kinetic Molecular Theory; in fact, we presume that gases are composed of simple particles with no internal structure that do not interact with one another.  The progression works because students recognize how the model helps them understand what is going on and what limitations it might have.  Students don't have to accept the authority of the teacher or the textbook; as much as is practical, they are introduced to the evidence that leads to the development of a new model or modification of an existing one.  We argue that this understanding of the nature of science and scientific reasoning is what we really want our students to have when they leave our classroom.  This emphasis of models and modeling is entirely consistent with the goals found in the NGSS.

This approach often causes some dissonance among instructors when they first encounter it because it runs contrary to the way most of them have been taught.  Those who are able to embrace the pedagogy have reported greater student satisfaction and improved performance on standard tests. Content doesn't have to be pounded into students' heads. Students are naturally curious beings; they derive satisfaction when THEY can make sense of the world around them. Modeling Instruction allows this to happen.