Applying Modeling Instruction to High School Chemistry To Improve

Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Applying Modeling Instruction to High School Chemistry To Improve Students’ Conceptual Understanding Larry Dukerich* American Modeling Teachers Association, Phoenix, Arizona 85048, United States S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: With the release of the Next Generation Science Standards, high school chemistry teachers are now pondering the implications of their recommendations for their teaching. They may agree that traditional instruction, as the Framework points out, "emphasizes discrete facts with a focus on breadth over depth, and does not provide students with engaging opportunities to experience how science is actually done." Teachers must also wonder what a course that emphasizes models and modeling would look like. How could they modify their current classroom practice to make it more model-centered while still addressing the content they feel they must teach? This article describes the extension of Modeling Instruction, a highly successful reformed approach to teaching high school physics, to the subject of chemistry. It outlines how this approach differs from traditional instruction, including the unique organization of the content, the emphasis on conceptual understanding, how the laboratory can be used to elicit models rather than validate lecture, and the development of a classroom culture designed to encourage students to make and evaluate models. KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, Curriculum, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Analogies/Transfer

■

BACKGROUND Modeling Chemistry has its roots in Modeling Instruction in High School Physics, a research-based reformed pedagogy that was supported by the 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. From 1995 to 1999, 200 physics teachers participated in 4-week workshops in successive summers to learn this approach and to train colleagues as well. Since that time, more than 6000 teachers from 48 states and a number of other nations have taken summer Modeling Workshops at universities in many states.1 The success of Modeling Instruction in high school physics is well documented.2−10 Many physics teachers also teach chemistry and were eager to adopt a reformed pedagogy in that course as well. As a result, a group of Modeling teachers began work in 2004 to restructure the high school chemistry course using Modeling principles. They were guided by the CHEM-Study approach that first appeared in the early 1960s.11 In the summer of 2005, a pilot chemistry workshop was offered to high school teachers at Arizona State University. Since that time, over 1000 teachers have attended summer Modeling Chemistry workshops nationwide to learn how to use this approach in their classrooms.

Model physical objects and processes using diagrammatic, graphical and algebraic representations. Recognize a small set of particle models as the content core of chemistry. Evaluate scientific models through comparison with empirical data. View Modeling as the procedural core of scientific knowledge. As a result, a high school chemistry course that employs Modeling Instruction differs from a more traditional approach in three important ways: the way content is organized, the role lab plays in the development of concepts, and the way the instructor and students interact. These differences help to make learning chemistry via Modeling a more positive and meaningful experience for students. Organization of the Content

Modeling Chemistry is organized around a series of models rather than a collection of topics. In this approach, students begin with phenomena they can readily observe and are guided to develop the simplest model of matter that helps them make sense of their observations. In each subsequent unit, students encounter phenomena that require them to modify the existing model or replace it with a more robust model. This constructivist approach mirrors how early scientists developed understanding of chemistry concepts. A detailed description of these models, the concepts they address, and how they gradually evolve as the need arises can be found in the Supporting Information: Progression of Models in Chemistry. This approach is entirely consistent with

■

HOW DOES MODELING INSTRUCTION IN CHEMISTRY DIFFER FROM TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION? The goals of Modeling Instruction? They are to guide students to: Construct and use scientific models to describe, to explain, to predict and to control physical phenomena. © 2015 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

Published: July 29, 2015 1315

DOI: 10.1021/ed500909w J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1315−1319

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

and how to move readily from one to another when they are describing some phenomenon. Figure 1 shows multiple ways of describing the relationship between the pressure and volume of a gas.

the Science and Engineering Practices found in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS): I construct mental and conceptual models to represent and understand phenomena I use models to explain and predict behaviors of systems, or test a design I refine my models in light of new empirical evidence12 Traditional chemistry textbooks are, unfortunately, organized in a way that is sensible to those who already understand chemistry. Dudley Herron, in The Chemistry Classroom, wrote:13 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.” An example of the contrast between Modeling Chemistry and traditional curricula is the treatment of the inner workings of the atom. Rather than asking students in Chapter 2 or 3 to accept the authority of the text and instructor (typically, very little experimental evidence is provided for this subatomic structure), the Modeling approach postpones addressing these concepts until such treatment is really needed. Then, it provides as much of the evidence as is practical to support the belief in a model of an atom with internal structure. Further detail on the scope and sequence can be found in the Supporting Information: Progression of Models in Chemistry.

Figure 1. Graphical, algebraic, and diagrammatic representations of the observed P−V behavior of a gas when n and T are constant. Note: the streaks trailing the particles are “whooshies”, and their lengths indicate the average speed of the particles.

The focus is on helping students develop a strong conceptual understanding before introducing problems that require quantitative fluency. Instead of being shown a set of poorly understood algorithms by which they arrive at “the answer” by a plug-andchug approach, students are taught to tackle a problem in multiple ways, and to judge for themselves whether their solution is reasonable. An example of this is provided in the Supporting Information: Model-Based Approach to the Behavior of Gases. Another example of this emphasis on conceptual understanding is the use of energy bar charts to keep track of the ways energy is stored in a system and transferred between system and surroundings. This representational tool is described in greater detail in an article on ChemEd X: A Modeling Approach to Energy Storage and Transfer.16 A third example is the use of Before-Change-After (BCA) tables along with particle diagrams to solve stoichiometry problems. While the BCA tables follow the same basic principles of the ICE tables typically used in solving equilibrium problems, the explicit connection with particle diagrams depicting reactants and product mixtures helps students understand what the numbers in the table actually describe. A more detailed account of how this conceptual approach differs from an algorithmic one can be found in blog post on ChemEd X: Conceptual Chemistry.17 These and other strategies may be developed into subsequent articles.

Role of the Laboratory

In traditional curricula, one usually finds a set of highly structured experiments in which students are primarily engaged in confirming ideas they have already learned in the lecture/ recitation portion of the course.14,15 In Modeling Chemistry, the experiments are designed to challenge students to revise their thinking by using gradually more complex models to describe or explain the evidence they encounter. The instructor sets the stage for the laboratory experience by demonstrating some phenomenon. Through class discussion students reach a common understanding of the design of the experiment they are about to perform. Each lab is intended to provide the evidence that will support features of the model to be introduced, or to reveal shortcomings in the existing model that will require its modification. Additional lab deployments give students the opportunity to apply what they have learned about the current model of matter in a somewhat different context.

■

THE MODELING CLASSROOM CULTURE In traditional classrooms, instructors present the information they feel is important for their students to know and demonstrate the skills they want their students to master.18−20 Unfortunately, there is considerable evidence that teaching by telling is ineffective.18,19 Hestenes writes, “Coherent understanding cannot be transferred from teacher to student by lucid explanations or brilliant demonstrations.”18 Students systematically misunderstand much of what we tell them because they do not have the same “schema” that we teachers do.19,20 To a teacher, the phrase “conservation of energy” conjures up the image of an energy accountant, who understands the importance of keeping track of the way energy is stored in a system and exchanged with the

Emphasis on Conceptual Understanding and Robust Problem-Solving Techniques

In the Modeling approach, students learn to use a number of representational tools (verbal, diagrammatic, graphical, algebraic) 1316

DOI: 10.1021/ed500909w J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1315−1319

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

surroundings. To students, it is simply a definition to memorize and regurgitate on a test.18,20 Likewise, students do not learn to become effective problem-solvers by watching the teacher solve problems at the board any more than one could become physically fit by sitting on the couch and watching a workout video. By contrast, in a Modeling classroom, the teacher provides direction for investigation and model building while the students work together to represent and understand the phenomenon. They also work together to define key concepts (such as conservation of mass) from their evidence before the related scientific terminology is introduced. Problem solving evolves from applying the representational tools developed to describe the model to a new situation rather than learning to use a list of steps provided by a textbook or teacher. Throughout this process, the teacher’s role is to listen to the students’ discourse and use questioning strategies21 to deepen the students’ thinking or elicit stronger explanations for their reasoning and conclusions. Why the emphasis on models and modeling? Hestenes writes:19 Scientific practice involves the construction, validation and application of scientific models, so science instruction should be designed to engage students in making and using models. Scientific models are coherent units of structured knowledge. They are used to organize factual information into coherent wholes, often by the coordinated use of general laws or principles. Therefore, the structure of scientific knowledge can be made more explicit for students by organizing course content around a small number of basic models. The ability of students to make and use models depends on the representational tools at their command. Students learn transferable modeling skills by applying given models to a variety of situations to describe, explain, or predict physical events or to design experiments. These ideas have been incorporated into a methodology for physics teaching and a course for training teachers. The developers of this approach contend that the handful of particle models described in the Supporting Information: Progression of Models in Chemistry are easier for students to grasp than the myriad of topics found in standard high school texts. These models help students make sense of their observations of the macroscopic world through the coordinated use of diagrammatic, graphical, and symbolic representations. In a Modeling classroom, the teacher guides students to a coherent understanding of the key concepts by listening to students’ thinking and asking questions to help them construct their own understanding.22 In both problem-solving and laboratory activities, students are required to articulate their plans and assumptions, explain their procedures and justify their conclusions. The Modeling method is unique in requiring the students to present and defend an explicit model as justification for their conclusions in every case. The instructor must be well prepared to consistently guide this process to a timely and satisfying closure. Specifically, the instructor must be (1) fully conversant with all aspects of the relevant models and (2) acutely aware of likely student misconceptions or knowledge deficiencies. In short, a Modeling classroom differs from a traditional one, as shown in Box 1.

Box 1. Comparison of Instructional Features in Modeling versus Traditional Approaches Modeling Constructivist Cooperative Inquiry Student-Centered Active Engagement Student Activity Student Articulation Laboratories Elicit Models

versus

Traditional Transmissionist Lecture−Demonstration Teacher-Centered Passive Reception Teacher Demonstration Teacher Presentation Laboratories Validate Lecture

implementation of this approach requires extensive training and deliberative practice. This professional development is found in Modeling Instruction workshops, which are an intense immersion experience. They are typically 2−3 weeks in length (6 h/day). Why so long? Perhaps the best answer can be found on the Workshops 2015 page at American Modeling Teachers Association (AMTA) Web site.23 Please note: AMTA strongly recommends workshops that are 3 weeks in duration because these provide teachers the opportunity to practice the interactive engagement techniques crucial to the successful implementation of Modeling Instruction in the classroom. Two-week workshops can also be effective, provided academic year follow-up support is available. Professional development experiences that are shorter in duration are not considered Modeling Workshops. Such “Modeling Lite” or “Introduction to Modeling” type sessions afford participants the chance to explore aspects of Modeling instruction. However, we believe they provide teachers neither sufficient time to develop a deep understanding of the pedagogy nor the opportunity to practice the listening and questioning skills that allow one to successfully implement the approach.24−26 In Modeling Instruction workshops, participants toggle between the roles of student and teacher. In student mode, participants work through the labs, worksheets and evaluation instruments as if they were students. The instructor demonstrates Socratic ̈ questioning techniques to guide them to correct errors or naive conceptions. In the second half of workshop, participants practice the role of instructor in guiding “students” to correct mistakes made on whiteboards, while other participants provide feedback. In teacher mode, participants discuss the implications of chemistry education articles assigned to read, ask questions about the pedagogy and logistical concerns, and offer suggestions about what has worked for them. Teachers frequently remark that their content knowledge had improved so that they now felt more comfortable conducting discussions on a conceptual level. In the summer of 2014, over 1100 teachers attended Modeling Instruction workshops (in various disciplines) at sites in 20 states. Information about the workshops for Summer 2015 can be found at the AMTA Web site. While the focus of these workshops is primarily on Modeling pedagogy, a robust set of curricular materials is provided to each participant. Teachers are invited to modify these materials for their own use as they see fit. Furthermore, participants are given a one-year trial membership in AMTA.

■

■

DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHOPS It has been said that teachers often teach the way they were taught. Because Modeling Instruction is so different from the traditional lecture−demonstration mode of instruction, effective

IMPACT ON TEACHING AND LEARNING Teachers frequently describe the workshop experience as having a profound impact on their teaching. After a year of implementing 1317

DOI: 10.1021/ed500909w J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1315−1319

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

counterparts. This is not surprising, as these tests tend to be written at lower cognitive levels. They simply cannot measure improvements in students’ ability to reason, to frame and defend arguments, or to collect and analyze data in the lab. As more data on better-designed tests become available, it should be possible to better assess the effectiveness of Modeling Instruction in chemistry. A newly designed conceptual examination, the Assessment of Basic Chemistry Concepts (ABCC), has been used to assess student understanding in Modeling classrooms for nearly three years. Preliminary findings from the analysis of pretest−posttest data are encouraging. The story of the development and validation of this instrument will be the subject of another paper. Despite the lack of compelling quantitative data, there has been considerable interest by members of the chemistry teaching community in this approach, as evidenced by the fact that over 600 teachers attended workshops the last two summers and that there are 1684 teachers subscribed to the ChemMod listserv. Teachers interested in learning more about models and modeling are encouraged to visit the AMTA Web site.28

Modeling instruction in their classes, a majority of participants reported that they were better able to lead a class of students using investigative, inquiry-oriented activities, use questioning to elicit students’ thinking or probe for misconceptions, and help students to represent scientific ideas or relationships in multiple formats (mathematical, graphical, diagrams, etc.).27 They also state that their content knowledge had also improved so that they now felt more comfortable conducting discussions on a conceptual level. Teachers also report improvements in classroom discourse and student satisfaction with their course. Here is an excerpt from a blog post by a teacher who attended Modeling Chemistry workshops in successive summers (2012−2013). I have taught Chemistry... for 20+ years and nothing has changed my style of teaching more than attending the Modeling Chemistry workshops for 10 days each in June 2012 and June 2013 at East Tennessee State University.... The first observation that I noticed when I implemented Modeling Instruction last year was that my students were actually having in-depth discussions about how the particles were behaving under the given conditions and how they should be represented on their whiteboards. The level of interest in what we are discussing in class has greatly increased and students seem to really enjoy working productively in groups. Each group must present their whiteboard to the class and be able to answer questions about their particle diagrams. The comments that I hear are “Do we get to whiteboard today?” and “I love whiteboarding.” Also, I have frequently heard, “Is class already over? Wow, time flew by.” I am also pleased to see that most groups take great pains to make their whiteboards colorful and well-illustrated. Groups are changed with every unit so that students don’t get accustomed to the same people and the same role within the group. Another teacher, a 30+ year veteran, wrote: I was late about 10 minutes to my first period class because of an office meeting. I walked in the back of the room and froze. The class was a sophomore Chemistry class (not physics) reviewing stoichiometry and the students had picked up right where we left off the day before. One student was acting as moderator. Teams had white boards. They had created their own review problem and posted it on the front board. I thought I was having an out-of-body experience. The student moderator asked the class to raise their boards and prompted them to look for similarities and differences! They proceeded to critique their own and other’s work! I ducked next door without being noticed. I grabbed my colleague and a flip cam. We went back and eavesdropped for a moment. Then I entered and shot a short video clip, trying not to interrupt their flow, and when they finished praised them for showing me that I’m “obsolete”. I shared with them the fact that they had taken a huge jump toward becoming life-long learners independent of the quality of the “teaching” they received. They were mastering critical analysis for themselves. Unfortunately, sufficient quantitative data do not yet exist to conclusively demonstrate that the use of this approach leads to improved student performance. One reason for the lack of data is that many states are rewriting their exams to be more aligned with the new standards. But a more important reason has been the lack of grant funding to conduct rigorous research. Preliminary data show that students in Modeling classrooms do only about as well on district tests as their non-Modeling

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The document Progression of Models in Chemistry lists the models introduced in each of the instructional units and the concepts they address. Model-based Approach to the Behavior of Gases provides further examples of the representations of the behavior of gases as well as a description of a way to solve gas law problems without resorting to poorly understood formulas. This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author thanks Brenda Royce and Ray Howanski for their help in developing and testing curricular materials, and Laura Slocum and Deanna Cullen for encouragement in writing this article.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Jackson, J.; Dukerich, L.; Hestenes, D. Modeling Instruction: An Effective Model for Science Education. Science Educator 2008, 17 (1), 10−17. http://www.nsela.org/images/stories/scienceeducator/ 17article7.pdf [Note: no new data.] (accessed Jul 2015). (2) U.S. Department of Education, Educational Technology Expert Panel. Modeling Instruction in High School Physics. In Exemplary and Promising Educational Technology Programs, 2000; Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Office of Reform Assistance and Dissemination, U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC, 2002. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED461376.pdf (accessed Mar 2015). (3) Hestenes, D. Findings of the Modeling Workshop Project (199400). http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/ModelingWorkshopFindings.pdf (accessed Mar 2015). (4) Hake, R. Interactive-Engagement vs Traditional Methods: A SixThousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses. Am. J. Phys. 1998, 66, 64. (5) Liang, L.; Fulmer, G.; Majerich, D.; Clevenstine, R.; Howanski, R. The Effects of a Model-Based Physics Curriculum Program with a Physics First Approach: A Causal-Comparative Study. J. Sci. Educ. 1318

DOI: 10.1021/ed500909w J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1315−1319

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Technol. 2012, 21 (1), 114−124. http://link.springer.com/article/10. 1007/s10956-011-9287-2 (accessed Jul 2015). [Ninth-graders enrolled in the model-based program in a Physics First initiative achieved substantially greater conceptual understanding of physics content than those 11th- and 12th-graders enrolled in the conventional nonmodeling, non-PF program (Honors strand). For 11th- and 12thgraders enrolled in the non-PF, nonhonors strands, the Modeling Instruction classes also outperformed the conventional nonmodeling classes.].10.1007/s10956-011-9287-2 (6) Dye, J.: Cheatham, T.; Rowell, G.; Barlow, A.; Carlton, R. The Impact of Modeling Instruction within the Inverted Curriculum on Student Achievement in Science. Electronic Journal of Science Education 2013, 17, 2, http://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/view/11231 (accessed Mar 2015). (7) (a) Malone, K. The Convergence of Knowledge Organization, Problem-Solving Behavior, and Metacognition Research with the Modeling Method of Physics InstructionPart I. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online 2006, 4 (1), 14−26; http://www2.phy.ilstu. edu/~wenning/jpteo/issues/jpteo4(1)aut06.pdf (accessed Jul 2015). (b) Malone, K. The Convergence of Knowledge Organization, Problem-Solving Behavior, and Metacognition Research with the Modeling Method of Physics InstructionPart II. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online 2007, 4 (2), 3−15; http://www2.phy.ilstu. edu/~wenning/jpteo/issues/jpteo4(2)win07.pdf (accessed Jul 2015). (8) O’Brien, M. J.; Thompson, J. R. Effectiveness of Ninth-Grade Physics in Maine: Conceptual Understanding. Phys. Teach. 2009, 47 (4), 234−239. (9) (a) Legleiter, E. Modeling: Changes in Traditional Physics Instruction. In Exemplary Science in Grades 9−12; Yager, R., Ed.; NSTA Press: Washington, DC, 2005; pp 73−81. (b) Minaya, C. R. The View from One Classroom. In Exemplary Science in Grades 9−12; Yager, R., Ed.; NSTA Press: Washington, DC, 2005; pp 91−100. http://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/ 9780873552578 (accessed Jul 2015). (10) Andrews, D.; Oliver, M.; Vesenka, J. Implications of Modeling Method Training on Physics Teacher Development in California’s Central Valley. J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online 2003, 1 (4), 14−24. http:// www2.phy.ilstu.edu/~wenning/jpteo/issues/jpteo1(4)mar03.pdf (accessed Jul 2015). (11) Heikkinen, H. W. To Form a Favorable Idea of Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (7), 680−684. (12) From Phoenix Union High School District poster enumerating NGSS Science and Engineering Practices https://arizonawet.arizona. edu/sites/arizonawet.arizona.edu//files/programs/ NGSS%20Science%20Poster_0.pdf (accessed Jul 2015). (13) Herron, D. The Chemistry Classroom; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1997. (14) Wieman, C. Why Not Try a Scientific Approach to Science Education? Change 2007, September/October. http://www. changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/SeptemberOctober%202007/full-scientific-approach.html (accessed Jul 2015). (15) Domin, D. A Review of Laboratory Instruction Styles. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (4), 543−547. (16) Posthuma-Adams, E. A Modeling Approach to Energy Storage and Transfer (ChemEdX article posted 05/03/2014). http://www. chemedx.org/article/modeling-approach-energy-storage-and-transfer (accessed Jul 2015). (17) Dukerich, L. Conceptual Chemistry (ChemEdX blog entry posted 11/19/2014). http://www.chemedx.org/blog/conceptualchemistry (accessed Jul 2015). (18) Wells, M.; Hestenes, D.; Swackhamer, G. A Modeling Method for High School Physics Instruction. Am. J. Phys. 1995, 63 (7), 606− 619. (19) Hestenes, D. Modeling Methodology for Physics Teachers. In The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities, AIP Conf. Proc. 399; Redish, E. F., Rigden, J. S., Eds.; American Institute of Physics: Woodbury, NY, 1997; Vol 2. (20) Halloun, I. Schematic Modeling for Meaningful Learning of Physics. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1996, 33 (9), 1019−1041.

(21) The Inquiry Project. Checklist: Goals for Productive Discussions and Nine Talk Moves. http://inquiryproject.terc.edu/ assessment/Goals_and_Moves.cfm (accessed Jul 2015). (22) Megowan, C. Framing Discourse for Optimal Learning in Science and Mathematics. Ph.D. Dissertation, Division of Curriculum and Instruction, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 2007. (23) American Modeling Teachers Association. Workshops 2015. http://modelinginstruction.org/workshops-2015/ (accessed Jul 2015). (24) Borko, H. Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain. Educational Researcher 2004, 33 (8), 3−15. (25) Clewell, B. C.; Cosentino de Cohen, C.; Campbell, P. B.; Perlman, L. Review of Evaluation Studies of Mathematics and Science Curricula and Professional Development Models; The Urban Institute: Washington, DC, 2005. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/ 411149.pdf (accessed Jul 2015). (26) Desimone, L. Improving Impact Studies of Teachers’ Professional Development: Toward Better Conceptualizations and Measures. Educational Researcher 2009, 38 (3), 181−199. (27) Findings from surveys of teachers having attended workshops in 2010−2013 (28) American Modeling Teachers Association home page. http:// modelinginstruction.org/ (accessed Jul 2015). The American Modeling Teachers Association (AMTA) is an organization of teachers, by teachers, and for teachers who utilize Modeling Instruction in their science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teaching practice. Currently, there are over 1900 members whose dues support the goals and activities of the organization. Members and nonmembers have access to a wealth of resources at the AMTA Web site. Curricular materials and assessment instruments are available to members only.

1319

DOI: 10.1021/ed500909w J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1315−1319