A Professional Development Course with an Introduction of Models and Modeling in Science

  • Genaro Zavala
  • Hugo Alarcon
  • Julio Benegas
Part of the International Perspectives on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling book series (IPTL)


This contribution proposes a short professional development course we designed for high school and introductory courses at the college level of physics. The design is based on the results of Physics Education Research by using a contructivistic, active-learning approach so that teachers, besides being instructed content knowledge, they are also trained in pedagogical knowledge by living the experience. Models and modeling in science are introduced in one of the activities of the course in which teachers reflect, based upon their own experience, their students’ alternative conceptions and difficulties resulting in a model-eliciting activity in which teachers offer their own model of teaching practice. Results of content knowledge and results on teachers’ models will be presented.


Content Knowledge Conceptual Knowledge Alternative Conception Pedagogical Knowledge Multiple Choice Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Genaro Zavala and Hugo Alarcon acknowledge financial support from the Tecnologico de Monterrey Research Chair in Physics Education Research under grant CAT-140.

Julio C. Benegas aknowledges the financial support of the Tecnologico de Monterrey for his participation in the course here describe.Part of this research has been carried out under the Project P-320102 financed by the Universidad Nacional de San Luis, Argentina.


  1. Abbot, D. S., Saul, J. M., Parker, G. W., and Beichner, R. J. (2000). Can one lab make a difference? Physics Education Research, American Journal of Physics, 68(Suppl. 7), S60–S61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hake, R. (1998). Interactive engagement vs. traditional methods: A sixthousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hesteness, D., Wells, M., and Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lesh, R., and Doerr, H. (2003). Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching and learning. In R. Lesh, and H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond Constructivism: Models and Modeling Perspectives on Mathematics Problem Solving, Learning and Teaching (pp. 3–33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, E., and Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In A. E. Kelly, and R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education (pp. 591–645). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. McDermott, L. C. (2001). Oersted medal lecture 2001: Physics education research: The key to student learning. American Journal of Physics, 69, 1127–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. McDermott, L. C., and Dewatter, L. S. (2000). The need for special science courses for teachers: Two perspectives in Inquiring into Inquiry in Science Learning and Teaching (AAAS, Washington, D.C.), 2000.Google Scholar
  8. McDermott, L. C., Shaffer, P. S., and PER. (1998). Tutorials in Introductory Physics. Prentice Hall, translated as Tutoriales en Fisica Introductoria (2001). Buenos Aires: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. McDermott, L. C., Shaffer, P. S., and Somers, M. D. (1994). Research as a guide for teaching introductory mechanics: An illustration in the context of the Atwood’s machine. American Journal ofPhysics, 62, 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mestre, J. P. (2001). Implications of research on learning for the education of prospective science and physics teachers. Physics Education, 36, 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC, National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Pinto, R. (2005). Introducing curriculum innovations in science: Identifying teachers transformations and the design of related teacher education. Science Education, 89, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Redish, E., and Steinberg, R. (1999). Teaching physics: Figuring out what works. Physics Today 52, 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schorr, R. Y., and Lesh, R. (2003). A modeling approach for providing teacher development. In R. Lesh, and H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond Constructivism: Models and Modeling Perspectives on Mathematics Problem Solving, Learning, and Teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. See, E. H. van, and Roberts, D. (2001). Using pedagogical inquiries as a basis for learning to teach: Prospective teachers reflections upon positive science learning experiences. Science Education, 85(6), 733–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stein, F. M. (2001). Re-preparing the secondary physics teacher. Physics Education, 36, 52–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zavala, G., Alarcon, H., and Benegas, J. (2007). Innovative training of in-service teachers for active learning: A short teacher development course based on Physics Education Research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(4), 559–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tecnologico de MonterreyMonterreyMéxico
  2. 2.Universidad de San LuisSan LuisArgentina

Personalised recommendations