Post on 26-Oct-2014
transcript
Running head: HIGH-SPEED CAMERAS AND COGNITIVE CHANGE 1
Using a High-Speed Camera and Cognitive Change Across School Curricula: A Research
Proposal
Doug Smith
ETEC500
Running head: HIGH-SPEED CAMERAS AND COGNITIVE CHANGE 2
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Cognitive Change Models ........................................................................................................... 3
21st Century Education and Technology ..................................................................................... 3
Digital Cameras ........................................................................................................................... 3
Research Statement ......................................................................................................................... 4
Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 5
Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 5
Interpretivist Approach ............................................................................................................... 6
Experiment Design ...................................................................................................................... 7
Measurement Instruments ........................................................................................................... 8
Timeframe of Study .................................................................................................................... 9
Significance..................................................................................................................................... 9
References ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Running head: HIGH-SPEED CAMERAS AND COGNITIVE CHANGE 3
Introduction
Cognitive Change Models
During my time teaching secondary school sciences I have often seen scientific
misconceptions in students that not only relate to abstract or complex ideas, but extend across
many different topics and grade levels (von Aufschnaiter & Rogge, 2010). It can be very
difficult to change or correct these misconceptions (Longfield, 2009) and therefore I am
interested in determining teaching methods or techniques to address this. One of the most
convincing methodologies for attacking misconceptions is the use of cognitive change models
(Duit, 2003).
21st Century Education and Technology
As part of another way for treating misconceptions, educators have been using new
technologies in the classroom to help students with conceptual understandings. The push for 21st
Century Learning (Traylor, 2009) emphasizes the role of technology in education, and it is a goal
of the Ministry of Education in British Columbia to “promote 21st Century Learning and the use
of technologies to support student choice and flexibility” (“21st Century Learning,” n.d.).
However, using technology is not a goal in itself: it is important that technology is implemented
using solid pedagogical principles.
Digital Cameras
Recognizing the importance of technology, I would like to identify a type of technology that
can be used effectively in many different situations. Digital cameras are useful across a range of
grade levels (Clark, Hosticka, & Bedell, 2000) including kindergarten (Boardman, 2007) and
Running head: HIGH-SPEED CAMERAS AND COGNITIVE CHANGE 4
across a range of subjects (Bull & Bell, 2009). Video cameras have also been used extensively
from physics classes (Abisdris & Phaneuf, 2007; Heck, Uylings, & Kędzierska, 2010; Kelly,
2006; Terzella, Sundermier, Sinacore, Owen, & Takai, 2008) to elementary classes (Bueno de
Mesquita, Dean, & Young, 2010). It stands to reason that if public schools were to purchase
digital cameras for use in the sciences, they would be rewarded with many positive learning
opportunities. Cameras, as a type of visual tool, would have the additional benefit of targeting
visual literacy, which is another effective learning methodology (George-Palilonis & Filak,
2010).
Research Statement
Misconceptions, cognitive change, visual literacy and technology all play a part in
effective learning, and the question arises if we can determine a cost effective technology that
meets the above mentioned parameters. For this research I would like to investigate using an
affordable hi-speed digital camera in a study of wide breadth across several different subjects
and grade levels. Specific questions include the following:
Can a digital camera illicit positive student attitudes in a range of student grade levels?
Can a digital camera be incorporated into lesson plans with minimal training and
infrastructure?
Can a digital camera be combined with a cognitive change model and improve
conceptual understandings in science?
The above research questions arose from gaps that I have encountered during my teaching
practice, where the procurement of technology can be difficult. Furthermore, the proposed
research is a result from unresolved questions I encountered while doing a literature review.
Running head: HIGH-SPEED CAMERAS AND COGNITIVE CHANGE 5
Literature Review
I wrote a literature review (Smith, 2011) to analyze the existing research that has been
performed on video technologies combined with cognitive change instruction models. This
review looked at an expanded notion of motion video that included not only traditional photo and
video media but also computer animations that simulated motion. The review did not limit the
scope or type of cognitive change instructional models investigated.
The research indicates that digital camera technologies have a positive impact on student
attitudes and engagement. It also appears that digital camera technology in itself does not result
in improved learning outcomes. However, when coupled with an effective cognitive change
instruction model, students show improved conceptual understandings.
The literature review concludes in suggesting two new questions or lines of inquiry.
First, the qualitative aspects of the research conducted should be repeated in order to find out if
student attitudes and engagement change over time. Secondly, because the research incorporated
many different types of technology, I wondered if a single technology could be combined with a
cognitive change model and used to show positive outcomes across several different age ranges
and topics. It was this second line of inquiry that led to the research proposal.
Methodology
This proposed research is meant to test how well teachers and students can adapt to using
an affordable high-speed digital camera in science class, and if the visual context of the camera
works with a cognitive change model to treat common scientific misconceptions. Three different
grade levels will be studied, measuring both attitudes and conceptual understandings of the
Running head: HIGH-SPEED CAMERAS AND COGNITIVE CHANGE 6
students. As well, the teachers’ attitudes will be evaluated to assess how comfortable they were
in implementing the new technology.
Interpretivist Approach
The research will be based on an interpretivist context (Sipe & Constable, 1996), where I
am not necessarily searching for absolute input (such as through a validated test measurement) to
answer the research questions. My experience has been that educators too often try to digitize
the question whether or not a classroom technology is appropriate by looking for a binary
answer: either the technology achieves an academic goal or it does not. I prefer to approach the
question of digital cameras in the classroom with an eye towards social interactions and how this
technology can instruct dialogue, cooperation and interactive participation. The qualitative side
of the study will involve reactions from both teachers and students as they collaborate in the
classroom environment, and the interpretivist paradigm is an appropriate way to meld these
inputs together.
Sample
The population for this research proposal is varied and broadly speaking will be K-12
students in the East Vancouver area. Multistage sampling will be used with the classes chosen
using convenience sampling. Three different grade levels/subjects will be studied: Grade Four
Science, Grade Eight Science and Grade 11 Physics. For each class, the students will be
randomly divided into a control group and experimental group. By using three classes for each
grade level/subject, there will be a minimum of 30 samples for each group, often considered the
minimum quantity required for statistical significance (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009). The
samples are not truly randomly selected, but the need for convenience sampling in selecting
Running head: HIGH-SPEED CAMERAS AND COGNITIVE CHANGE 7
classes is a required practicality. I believe this is an acceptable compromise given the
interpretivist nature of the research.
East Vancouver is an ideal location for setting the population of the study. Due to the
number of classes used for the study (nine in total), the high density of schools will aid with the
logistics and timeline for experiments. As well, East Vancouver is a highly diverse population
both ethnically and economically. Stratified sampling for specific ethnic or social economic
groups will not be used; nonetheless, it is worthwhile to be as inclusive as possible (Ryan,
Greene, Lincoln, Mathison, & Mertens, 1998). The average family income will be reported for
each school and I expect that the Grade Four and Grade Eight classes will have an average
family income close to the school’s overall average. It is reasonable to assume that the Physics
11 classes will have a higher average family income due to the relationship between social-
economic standing and academic performance because these classes will be biased towards
higher academic achievement (Pigott & Israel, 2005; Stipek & R. H. Ryan, 1997). Average
family income data will be retrieved from The Fraser Institute’s Report on Schools (Cowley,
Easton, & Thomas, 2010; 2011).
Experiment Design
The experimental design will incorporate a posttest-only control group design (Gay et al.,
2009) which is considered to be a very robust design type. In a typical experiment of this design,
sample mortality is the only threat to internal validation. Given that each experiment is very
short in length, I expect sample mortality to be very low. However, this particular research is not
a true experimental design because the sample is not purely random; furthermore, I expect there
Running head: HIGH-SPEED CAMERAS AND COGNITIVE CHANGE 8
to be an internal threat due to teacher influence. This type of internal threat is acceptable
because I am partly studying an interactional process between the teacher and students.
The experiment will begin with the teacher being given four digital cameras and a text
that explains a lesson topic along with common student misconceptions and suggestions for a
cognitive change intervention. The camera I will use is the Casio Exilim FR100, which has a
MSRP of $299 and can shoot video up to 1000 frames per second. It will be the teacher’s
responsibility to design their lesson plan for the experiment. The experiment groups will have
access to the digital cameras while the control group will not. The teachers will be required to
implement a cognitive change intervention with the control group and they will be asked to
complete an observation report on their students and the lesson. The three experiments are
outlined as follows:
Grade / Subject Topic Misconception Camera Treatment
Grade 4 Science Sound Waves Sound does not have much
energy
Slow motion of wine
glass vibrating and
breaking
Grade 8 Science Gravity Heavier objects fall faster than
lighter objects
Slow motion of objects
being dropped and
hitting the ground
Physics 11 Waves Wave interferences “bounce” off
each other
Slow motion of 2 wave
passing through each
other
Measurement Instruments
After the lesson activity the students and the teacher will complete a separate Likert type
questionnaire. The students will be asked about their feelings on the activity, their comfort level
with using the cameras (for the experiment group), and how well they think they understand the
scientific concepts covered. The teacher will be asked about their background in using
Running head: HIGH-SPEED CAMERAS AND COGNITIVE CHANGE 9
technology and digital cameras, their background in using cognitive change interventions, and
their comfort level in designing and implementing the lesson.
The following lesson the students will complete a posttest to determine their level of
conceptual understanding. It would be very difficult to validate the tests because of the small
sample size used. The control group and experiment groups will be compared with t-test
analysis to identify statistical significant differences. The attitude questionnaires will be
reviewed and combined with the teacher’s observations to complete a qualitative review of the
experiment.
Timeframe of Study
I expect to start this research at the beginning of the 2011/12 academic school year. The
first six weeks of the year will be spent enrolling and scheduling classes into the study. Once
this is complete the experiments can start. Since each experiment is short, I do not foresee any
difficulties in scheduling the different classes and lessons. I believe it is possible to start some
experiments during the enrollment phase, if the opportunity presents itself. The experiments are
not time dependent and there is no risk of pre-experiment corruption. The experiments are
scheduled to be finished by April of 2012, so that preliminary data can be given to the teachers
involved in the study to help in their professional development. The final report will be finished
by August 31, 2012.
Significance
The primary importance of this research is to demonstrate that a relatively inexpensive
technology can be incorporated into the classroom with minimal resources required in either
monetary or labour terms. This goal will be realized if both the students and teachers have
Running head: HIGH-SPEED CAMERAS AND COGNITIVE CHANGE 10
positive attitudes towards the technology, and if the quantitative testing supports that appropriate
pedagogical lessons have been planned. The importance of this is to counteract a feeling that
“none of the new technology media [is] developed as a response to a pedagogical imperative, and
it shows” (as cited in Hennessy, 2006, p. 2). This research is very different from existing studies
which use a wide variety of technological tools that often require significant resources including
costs (computers and software) and training. With positive outcomes, the research can be used
by teachers as a supporting document to convince administrators and departments that a high-
speed camera is a flexible and useful technological device for a school to purchase.
Running head: HIGH-SPEED CAMERAS AND COGNITIVE CHANGE 11
References
21st century learning. (n.d.). . Retrieved March 5, 2011, from
http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/dist_learning/21century_learning.htm
Abisdris, G., & Phaneuf, A. (2007). Using a digital video camera to study motion. Science
Teacher, 74(9), 44 - 47.
von Aufschnaiter, C., & Rogge, C. (2010). Misconceptions or missing conceptions?. EURASIA
Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 3 - 18.
Boardman, M. (2007). “I know how much this child has learned. I have proof!”: Employing
digital technologies for documentation processes in kindergarten. Australian Journal of
Early Childhood, 32(3), 59-66.
Bueno de Mesquita, P., Dean, R. F., & Young, B. J. (2010). Making sure what you see is what
you get: Digital video technology and the preparation of teachers of elementary science.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE Journal), 10(3), 275-
293.
Bull, G., & Bell, L. (2009). Lights, camera, learning!. Learning & Leading with Technology,
36(8), 2.
Clark, K., Hosticka, A., & Bedell, J. (2000). Digital cameras in the k-12 classroom.
Cowley, P., Easton, S., & Thomas, M. (2010). Report card on secondary schools in British
Columbia and Yukon 2010. Vancouver BC: Fraser Institute. Retrieved from
http://britishcolumbia.compareschoolrankings.org/pdfs/Fraser_Institute_Report_Card_on
_Secondary_Schools_in_British_Columbia_and_Yukon_2010.pdf
Cowley, P., Easton, S., & Thomas, M. (2011). Report card on British Columbia’s elementary
schools 2011. Vancouver BC: Fraser Institute. Retrieved from
Running head: HIGH-SPEED CAMERAS AND COGNITIVE CHANGE 12
http://britishcolumbia.compareschoolrankings.org/pdfs/Fraser_Institute_Report_Card_on
_British_Columbia%E2%80%99s_Elementary_Schools_2011.pdf
Duit, R. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and
learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671 - 688.
doi:10.1080/0950069032000076652
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2009). Educational research : Competencies for
analysis and applications (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Merrill/Pearson.
George-Palilonis, J., & Filak, V. (2010). Visuals, path control, and knowledge gain: Variables
that affect students’ approval and enjoyment of a multimedia text as a learning tool.
International Journal on E-Learning, 9(4), 463–480.
Heck, A., Uylings, P., & Kędzierska, E. (2010). Understanding the physics of bungee jumping.
Physics Education, 45(1), 63-72. doi:10.1088/0031-9120/45/1/007
Hennessy, S. (2006). Integrating technology into teaching and learning of school science: A
situated perspective on pedagogical issues in research. Studies in Science Education,
42(1), 1-48. doi:10.1080/03057260608560219
Kelly, B. (2006). Thirty frames per second. Science Teacher, 73(7), 50 - 53.
Longfield, J. (2009). Discrepant teaching events: Using an inquiry stance to address students’
misconceptions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,
21(2), 266-271.
Pigott, T. D., & Israel, M. S. (2005). Head start children’s transition to kindergarten. Journal of
Early Childhood Research, 3(1), 77 -104. doi:10.1177/1476718X05051347
Running head: HIGH-SPEED CAMERAS AND COGNITIVE CHANGE 13
Ryan, K., Greene, J., Lincoln, Y., Mathison, S., & Mertens, D. M. (1998). Advantages and
challenges of using inclusive evaluation approaches in evaluation practice. American
Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 101 - 22.
Sipe, L., & Constable, S. (1996). A chart of four contemporary research paradigms: Metaphors
for the modes of inquiry. Taboo, the Journal of Culture and Education, 1, 153-163.
Smith, D. (2011). Camera and video technologies and cognitive change models in science: A
literature review (Unpublished Literature Review). Vancouver BC: University of British
Columbia.
Stipek, D. J., & Ryan, R. H. (1997). Economically disadvantaged preschoolers: Ready to learn
but further to go. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 711 - 23.
Terzella, T., Sundermier, J., Sinacore, J., Owen, C., & Takai, H. (2008). Measurement of “g”
using a flashing led. Physics Teacher, 46(7), 395-397.
Traylor, S. (2009). The future is in your hand. Technology & Learning, 29(6), 27 - 30.