Date post: | 27-Jan-2015 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | jeffersonhartman |
View: | 1,027 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Using Motion Probes to Enhance Students’ Understanding of Position vs. Time Graphs
A Project Presented to the Faculty of the College of Education
Touro University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of
MASTERS OF ARTS
In
Educational Technology
by
Jefferson Hartman
Using Motion Probes to Enhance Students’ Understanding of Position vs. Time Graphs
A Project Presented to the Faculty of the College of Education
Touro University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of
MASTERS OF ARTS
In
Educational Technology
by
Jefferson Hartman
Under the guidance and approval of the committee and approval by all the members, this study has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree.
Approved:
_________________________________ _____________________Pamela A. Redmond, Ed. D. Date
Touro UniversityCollege of Education
Author Release
Name: Jefferson Hartman
Touro University College of Education has permission to use my MA thesis or field project as an example of acceptable work. This permission includes the right to duplicate the manuscript as well a permits the document to be checked out from the College Library or School website.
Signature: ___________________________________
Date: _______________________________________
Motion probes and accompanied software allow students to simultaneously
perform a motion and see an accurate position vs. time graph produced on a computer
screen. Studies note that microcomputer-based laboratory (MBL) experiences are
helping students understand the relationships between physical events and graphs
representing those events (Barclay, 1986; Mokros and Tinker, 1987; Thornton, 1986;
Tinker, 1986). This study utilized Vernier motion probes and a WISE 4.0 project called
Graphing Stories, which allowed students to experience the connection between a
physical event and its graphic representation. As a basis for this study, the researcher
agreed with Kozhevnikov and Thornton (2006) when they suggested that the strong
emphasis MBL curricula place on visual/spatial representations has the potential not only
to facilitate students’ understanding of physics concepts, but also to enhance their spatial
visualization skills.
i
Table of Contents
Figures........................................................................................................................iii
Tables ........................................................................................................................iv
Chapter I....................................................................................................................1
Introduction....................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem...............................................................................2
Background and Need....................................................................................3
Purpose of the Study......................................................................................4
Research Questions........................................................................................5
Summary........................................................................................................6
Chapter II...................................................................................................................7
Introduction....................................................................................................7
Theoretical Rational.......................................................................................10
Inquiry-based learning...................................................................................11
Interpreting Graphs........................................................................................15
Probeware......................................................................................................20
Summary........................................................................................................28
Chapter III.................................................................................................................30
Introduction....................................................................................................30
Background and Development of the Study..................................................32
Components of the Study...............................................................................33
Methodology..................................................................................................35
Results............................................................................................................37
ii
Analysis..........................................................................................................42
Summary........................................................................................................44
Chapter IV..................................................................................................................46
Introduction....................................................................................................46
Study Outcomes.............................................................................................47
Proposed Audience, Procedures and Implementation Timeline....................48
Evaluation of the Study..................................................................................51
Summary........................................................................................................51
References..................................................................................................................52
Appendix A................................................................................................................58
Appendix B................................................................................................................61
iii
Figures
Figure 1: Line of best fit for land speed records.......................................................18
Figure 2: A distance versus time graph for two cars................................................21
Figure 3: The wrong way to represent a walk to and from a specific location.........22
Figure 4: The right way to represent a walk to and from a specific location...........23
Figure 5: Frequency distribution of the pre-test scores............................................37
Figure 6: Frequency distribution of the post-test scores...........................................38
Figure 7: Distance Time Graph for Student Investigation........................................44
Figure 8: Path of Walker...........................................................................................44
iv
Tables
Table 1: Frequency Distribution of Responses to the Questions Regarding the Usefulness of Motion Probes......................................................................39
Table 2: Frequency Distribution of Responses to the Questions Regarding Motion Probes and Student Engagement.................................................................40
Table 3: Frequency Distribution of Responses to the Questions Regarding the Advantage of a Motion Probe.....................................................................41
Chapter I
Middle school teachers always search for new, exciting ways to engage their
adolescent audience. International comparison research showed that although U.S.
fourth-grade students compare favorably, eighth-grade students fall behind their foreign
peers, particularly in their mastery of complex, conceptual mathematics, a cause for
concern about the preparation of students for careers in science (Roschelle et al., 2007).
Producing and interpreting position vs. time graphs is particularly difficult because they
have little to no prior knowledge on the subject. Nicolaou, Nicolaidou, Zacharias, &
Constantinou (2007) claimed that despite the rhetoric that is promoted in many
educational systems, the reality is that most science teachers routinely fail to help
students achieve a better understanding of graphs at the elementary school level.
There is also a knowledge gap that has developed between the students who are in
algebra and students who are not. Algebra students have experience with coordinates,
slope, rate calculations and linear functions. By the time motion lessons begin many
students have had zero experience with linear graphs which make it nearly impossible for
them to interpret. When introducing motion a considerable amount of time is spent with
rate and speed calculations. Algebra students excel and the others struggle. Without
understanding rate and proportionality, students cannot master key topics and
representations in high school science, such as laws (e.g., F= ma, F = -kx), graphs (e.g.,
of linear and piecewise linear functions), and tables (Roschelle et al., 2007). By sparking
their interest with technology, the knowledge gap between students regarding graphing
concepts should be reduced by the time they reach high school.
Statement of the Problem
After teaching for several years, the researcher came to the conclusion that in
order for students to understand graphing concepts and combat graphing misconceptions,
they must start with a firm foundation, practice and be assessed often. Both the degree of
understanding and the retention of this knowledge seemed to diminish only after a short
period of time when taught with traditional paper/pencil techniques. The researcher
chose to concentrate on utilizing motion probes with simultaneous graphing via computer
software because it is anticipated that this hands-on approach will provide a solid
foundation which in turn will reinforce knowledge retention. Sokoloff, Laws and
Thornton (2007) stated that students can discover motion concepts for themselves by
walking in front of an ultrasonic motion sensor while the software displays position,
velocity and/or acceleration in real time. Simply using this MBL type approach may not
be enough. Preliminary evidence showed that while the use of the MBL tools to do
traditional physics experiments may increase the students’ interest, such activities do not
necessarily improve student understanding of fundamental physics concepts (Thornton
and Sokoloff 1990). Lapp and Cyrus (2000) warn that although the literature suggested
benefits from using MBL technology, we must also consider problems that arise if we do
not pay attention to how the technology is implemented. Bryan (2006) stated a general
“rule of thumb” is that technology should be used in the teaching and learning of science
and mathematics when it allows one to perform investigations that either would not be
possible or would not be as effective without its use.
2
Background and Need
Much of the research suggested an improvement in student understanding of
graphing using the MBL approach; yet warn how the technique is implemented. The
MBL approach refers to any technique that connects a physical event to immediate
graphic representation. Some studies indicate that without proper precautions, technology
can become an obstacle to understanding (Bohren, 1988; Lapp, 1997; Nachmias and
Linn, 1987). Beichner compared how a motion reanimation (video) with “real” motion
and simultaneous graphing. Beichner (1990) stated that Brasell (1987) and others have
demonstrated the superiority of microcomputer-based labs, this may indicate that visual
juxtaposition is not the relevant variable producing the educational impact of the real-
time MBL. Bernard (2003) reluctantly suggested that technology leads to better learning.
Bernard advocated that it is important to focus on the cognitive aspects as well as the
technical aspects. Although many researchers could not find conclusive evidence to say
that MBL techniques improve student understanding of graphing concepts, the researcher
believed that most would agree that it does. This study attempted to show that the MBL
approach works.
This study will also bring to light the general need for students to utilize
developing technologies which in turn prepares them for future uncreated jobs.
Roschelle, et al. (2000) stated that schools today face ever-increasing demands in their
attempts to ensure that students are well equipped to enter the workforce and navigate a
complex world. Roschelle, et al. indicated that computer technology can help support
learning, and that it is especially useful in developing the higher-order skills of critical
thinking, analysis, and scientific inquiry.
3
Purpose of the Study
Luckily, students are somewhat enthusiastic about technology. This energy can
be harnessed by utilizing the technology of WISE 4.0 (Web Inquiry Based Environment)
and the Vernier motion probe in order to test if an MBL approach increased student
understanding of position vs. time graphs. The researcher is responsible for teaching
approximately 160 eighth grade students force and motion. WISE is the common
variable in a partnership between a public middle school in Northern California (MJHS)
and UC Berkeley. UC Berkeley has provided software, Vernier probes, Macintosh
computers and support with WISE 4.0. This unique opportunity to coordinate with
researchers from UC Berkeley is one reason this study was chosen. The other reason was
to prove that Graphing Stories is a valuable learning tool. Graphing Stories embedded
this MBL approach without making it the soul purpose of the project. Students are
immersed in a virtual camping trip that involves encountering a bear on a hiking trip.
Graphing Stories seamlessly supports the Vernier motion probe and software allowing
students to physically walk and simultaneously graph the approximate motion of the hike.
An added bonus is that students can instantly share their graph with other students who
are working on the project at the same time.
This study tested the hypothesis that students will have a better understanding of
graphing concepts after working with Vernier motion probes and Graphing Stories than
the students who work without the motion probes. Both groups took a pre-test and a
post-test. The researcher statistically compared the difference in the results between the
pre and post-tests of the same group and the difference in results between the post-tests of
4
each group. The data collection portion of the project took approximately 7 school days
to complete.
Research Questions
This project had two main research questions:
Does an MBL approach increases student understanding of graphing concepts?
Does motion probe usage increases student engagement?
Along with the main research questions came several secondary goals which included:
utilize the unique opportunity of the partnership between UC Berkeley and MJHS,
reinforce the idea that the project Graphing Stories is an inquiry based learning tool and
utilize students’ enthusiasm for technology.
The hypothesis as stated in the purpose of the project section above addressed the
research question regarding how the MBL approach increases students understanding of
graphing concepts. A student survey named Student Perception on Use of Motion Probes
helped to answer the research question regarding how motion probes increase student
engagement.
Definition of Terms
Graphing stories: a WISE 4.0 project that helps students understand that every graph has
a story to tell (WISE – Web-based Inquiry Science Environment, 1998-2010).
MBL: microcomputer-based laboratory. The microcomputer-based laboratory utilizes a
computer, a data collection interface, electronic probes, and graphing software, allowing
students to collect, graph, and analyze data in real-time (Tinker, 1986).
5
Vernier motion probes: a motion detector that ultrasonically measures distance to the
closest object and creates real-time motion graphs of position, velocity and acceleration
(Vernier Software and Technology, n.d.).
WISE: Web-based Inquiry Science Environment is a free online science learning
environment supported by the National Science Foundation (WISE – Web-based Inquiry
Science Environment, 1998-2010).
Summary
The MBL approach has a positive effect on students’ understanding of graphing
concepts if used correctly. According the NSTA (1999), “Microcomputer Based
Laboratory Devices (MBL's) should be used to permit students to collect and analyze
data as scientists do, and perform observations over long periods of time enabling
experiments that otherwise would be impractical. It was hoped that students who use
Vernier motion probes in connection with Graphing Stories will show a deeper
understanding of graphic concepts than students who did not use the motion probes. This
study reinforced the unique relationship between UC Berkeley and MJHS. The use of
technology will lessen the knowledge gap between algebra and non-algebra students and
their graphing skills. In general, research suggested that technology is not a panacea and
needs to be accompanied by thoughtful planning and meaningful purpose.
6
Chapter II
A graph depicting a physical event allows a glimpse of trends which cannot be
easily recognized in a table of the same data (Beichner, 1994). After teaching science to
eighth graders for several years most teachers will notice that many students consistently
have trouble with graphing, specifically line graphs. Most students understand the
concept of the x and y axis and plotting points, but do not make sense of what the line
they created actually means. Many students struggle with interpreting graphs for several
reasons. The first reason is insufficient exposure to graphing type tasks throughout their
earlier education. The California State Science Standards require that 8th grade students
understand the concept of slope. This is a mathematics standard that should be addressed
before students reach 8th grade, however, in practice, most students are not taught slope
until they take algebra either in 8th or 9th grade. Some students never take algebra at all.
This is a significant issue considering that there is a direct relationship between
understanding the concept of slope and interpreting graphs. Students often lack the
understanding of the vocabulary needed to describe the meaning of a graph. Terms like
direct relationship, inverse relationship, horizontal and vertical all seem to be
straightforward words, but continue to be absent from students’ repertoire. A person who
creates and interprets graphs frequently will become comfortable using the appropriate
descriptive terminology. A student with little experience graphing must put forth
significant effort in simply translating the vocabulary. The last reason students struggle
with graphing is that they are not accustomed to thinking in an abstract way. The most
important cognitive changes during early adolescence relate to the increasing ability of
children to think abstractly, consider the hypothetical as well as the real, consider
7
multiple dimensions of a problem at the same time, and reflect on themselves and on
complicated problems (Keating, 1990). Eight grade students are 12-13 years old; they
have not necessarily developed this thinking process. Interpreting graphs requires the
observer to look at a pattern of marks and make generalizations. Again, Algebra is the
first time many students are required to think in this manner.
Adolescents taught in middle school are perfect candidates for inquiry-based
learning projects because of their natural curiosity. According to the National Institutes of
Health (2005), inquiry-based instruction offers an opportunity to engage student interest
in scientific investigation, sharpen critical-thinking skills, distinguish science from
pseudoscience, increase awareness of the importance of basic research, and humanize the
image of scientists. As a student acquiring new knowledge, one might wonder if they
will ever use the information they are learning at a particular time. For example, how is
learning the foot structure of a shore bird of Humboldt County going to help in the
future? This is a learning process that requires one to look for patterns and transfer
context from one situation into another. Learning certain facts through lab and field work
directly helps with upcoming assessments. But perhaps even more important, it creates a
conceptual framework that is transferable to other fields of science. Many students have
limited experiences in their life which, in turn, limits the prior knowledge they bring to
the classroom. Novice science thinkers seek answers that reflect their everyday life
which may not resemble valid science concepts. Involving students in a science project
or experiment forces them to learn the basic vocabulary and concepts but also immerses
them in the process of asking questions, making hypotheses, finding evidence,
supporting claims, and interpreting and analyzing results. After students develop these
8
inquiry skills they will be better able to solve problems based on empirical evidence and
avoid misconceptions.
Misconceptions often arise when students are asked to interpret graphs. Students
have trouble extracting information from graphs because everyday experiences have not
prepared them to conceptualize. New technology called probeware (sometimes analogous
to MBL) helps students make connections between real experiences and data presented in
graphical form. According to the Concord Consortium (n.d.), probeware refers to
educational applications of probes, interfaces and software used for real-time data
acquisition, display, and analysis with a computer or calculator. By using the MBL
approach, as explained in chapter 1, the drudgery of producing graphs by hand are
virtually eliminated.
When researchers(Bernard, 2003; Lapp and Cyrus, 2000; Thornton and Sokoloff,
1990) compared real-time graphing of a physical event and traditional motion graphing
lessons, two findings emerged. There was some proof of a positive correlation between
real-time graphing and improved comprehension of graphing concepts as compared to
traditional methods of teaching motion graphing (Thornton & Sokoloff, 1990). However,
there was also some evidence suggesting that there was no correlation between the real-
time graphing teaching method and improved comprehension of graphing concepts
(Bernard, 2003). This evidence lends well to future research that answers the question of
which teaching method equips the students with the best skills to interpret the
relationship between physical events and the graphs that represent them.
9
Theoretical Rational
The “real” world manifests itself through a combination of all the events a person
has experienced. This idea is explained by Piaget’s (1980) learning theory called
constructivism. According to Piaget, fifty years of experience taught us that knowledge
does not result from a mere recording of observations without a structuring activity on the
part of the subject (p. 23). This statement gives reason for a teacher to design their
curriculum in a way that guides the students into a cognitive process of discovery through
experimentation. With the teacher acting as a facilitator, students are encouraged to
make their own inferences and conclusions with the use of their prior knowledge. For
Piaget (1952, 1969) the development of human intellect proceeds through adaptation and
organization. Adaptation is a process of assimilation and accommodation, where, on the
one hand, external events are assimilated into thoughts and, on the other, new and
unusual mental structures are accommodated into the mental environment (Boudourides,
2003). Assimilation refers to the integration of new knowledge into what is already
known. Accommodation refers to making room for new knowledge without a significant
change. There is a need for accommodation when current experience cannot be
assimilated into existing schema (Piaget, 1977). It is a teacher’s job to make sure
students do not fill the gaps of knowledge with incorrect thoughts while learning from a
“self-discovery” lesson. In order to prevent students from developing misconceptions the
teacher must make sure students do not miss or misunderstand significant events or attach
importance to information that is not meaningful to the study in progress.
This idea of experimentation can be thought of as inquiry-based learning.
Inquiry-based learning is a pedagogy of constructivism. Students develop a genuine idea
10
of the “real” world when they make discoveries on their own rather than have a teacher
lecture to them. According to Kubieck (2005), inquiry-based learning, when authentic,
complements the constructivist learning environment because it allows the individual
student to tailor their own learning process.
Inquiry-based Learning
Inquiry is probably the most chosen word to describe the goal of science. Inquiry-
based learning is often characterized by the types of procedures used. Chiappeta (1997)
described strategies and techniques that have been used successfully by science teachers:
asking questions, science process skills, discrepant events, inductive and deductive
activites, information gathering and problem solving. By asking meaningful questions,
teachers cause students to think critically and ask their own questions. Processing skills
like observing, classifying, measuring, inferring, predicting, and hypothesizing help a
student construct knowledge and communicate information. Chiappeta stated that a
discrepant event puzzles students, causing them to wonder why the event occurred as it
did. Piaget (1971) reinforced the idea by stating that puzzlement can stimulate students
to engage in reasoning and the desire to find out. In inductive activities, students
discover a concept by first encountering its attributes and naming it later. The exact
opposite is a deductive activity which first describes a concept followed by supportive
examples. Much of the prior knowledge needed to ask those important inquiry questions
comes from gathering information through research. Presenting a teenager with a
problem solving activity engages them in authetic investigation.
Like Chiappeta (1997), Colburn (2000) agreed that inquiry-based learning is a
widely accepted idea in the world of science education. Colburn reported his own
11
definition of inquiry-based instruction as “the creation of a classroom where students are
engaged in essentially open-ended, students centered, hands-on activites” (p. 42).
Colburn explained that even though inquiry is important, many teachers are not using it.
He also gave ideas of what inquiry looked like in the classroom. Some reasons why
teachers do not use inquiry include: unclear on the meaning of inquiry, inquiry only
works with high achievers, inadequate preparation and difficulty managing. Colburn and
Chiappeta identified similar inquiry-based instruction approaches:
Structured inquiry provides students with an investigation without divulging
the expected outcome.
Guided inquiry is similar to structured inquiry except students come up with
their own procedure for solving the problem.
Open inquiry takes it one step farther and asks students to come up with their
own question. Learning cycle is similar to deductive activity explained above.
Inquiry-based learning is suitable for all levels of students because inquiry tends
to be more successful with concepts that are “easier”. Colburn (2000) acknowledged that
to help all middle level students benefit from inquiry-based intructions, the science
education research community recommended:
orienting activites toward concrete, observable concepts
centering activites around questions that students can answer directly via
investigation
emphasizing activites using materials and situation familiar to students
chooing activites suited to students’ skills and knowledge to ensure success
12
In terms of being prepared and managing for inquiry-based instruction, teachers must
trust the process, take their time and allow students to adjust to open-ended activities.
The proposed study is a structured inquiry activity where students are faced with learning
the abstract concept of graphing by doing simple activites like moving forward and
backwards in front of a motion probe while observing the corresponding graph being
created.
Colburn (2000) as well as Huber and Moore (2001) explained how to develop
hands-on activities into inquiry-based lessons. Huber and Moore contended that the
strategies involve (a) discrepant events to engage students in direct inquiry; (b) teacher-
supported brainstroming activites to facilitate students in planning investigations; (c)
effective written job performance aids to provide structure and support; (d) requirements
that students provide a product of their research, which usually includes a class
presentation and a graph; and (e) class discussion and writing activites to facilitate
students in reflecting on their activites and learning. Chiappeta (1997) had the similar
idea of utilizing discrepant events, like balancing a ping pong ball above a blow drier, to
prompt student puzzlement and questioning. Huber and Moore suggested using these
strategies because the activites presented in textbooks are step by step instructions, which
is not characteristic of true inquiry-based learning.
All of the literature above supported the idea that inquiry is widely accepted in the
science community, but also suggested that it is not being used effectively. It outlined
what inquiry-based lessons should look like and gave strategies on how to utilize the
learning theory. Deters (2005) reported on how many high school chemistry teachers
conduct inquiry based labs. Of the 571 responses to the online survey from high school
13
chemistry teachers all over the U.S., 45% indicated that they did not use inquiry labs in
their classrooms (p. 1178). This seemed to be a low number even though the National
Science Standards include inquiry standards. Teachers gave reasons for not using
inquiry: loss of control, safety issues, used more class time, fear of abetting student
misconceptions, spent more time grading labs and students have many complaints.
Deters reported on students opinions regarding inquiry-based labs by collecting
comments from student portfolios from an private urban high school. The students
concerns included: more effort and thinking are required and the fear of being in control.
The positive student aspects included: develop mastery of material, learn the scientific
process, learn chemistry concepts, improves ability to correct or explain mistakes,
increased communication skills, learn procedural organization and logic, and better
performance on non-inquiry labs. Since planning and conducting inquiry-based labs
requires a significant effort, conducting them can be overwhelming. Deters suggested
that if students perform even a few inquiry-based labs each year throughout their middle
school and high school careers, by graduation they will be more confident, critical-
thinking people who are unafraid of “doing science”. As part of the proposed study,
students were required to reflect on the graphing activity by reporting on their perceived
success.
Computer-supported learning environments make it easier for students to propose
their own research focus, produce their own data, and continue their inquiry as new
questions arise, thus replicating scientific inquiry more realistically (Kubieck, 2005).
WISE 4.0 Graphing Stories is a computer-supported learning environment that works
with a motion probe. Students produced their own data by moving in front of the device.
14
This data was simultaneously represented in a graphic format. Students were asked to
replicate the motion by changing the scale of their movements. Along with producing a
graph of their motion they are also asked to match their motion to a given graph. Some
graphs were impossible to create, which in turn promotes direct inquiry. The goal of the
Graphing Stories program was to teach students how to interpret graphs utilizing an
inquiry-based strategy in computer-supported environment.
Interpreting Graphs
Drawing and interpreting graphs is a crucial skill in understanding many topics in
science, especially physics. McDermott, Rosenquist & van Zee (1987) stated that to be
able to apply the powerful tool of graphical analysis to science, students must know how
to interpret graphs in terms of the subject matter represented. The researchers were
convinced that many graphing problems were not necessarily caused by poor mathematic
skills. Because most of students in the study had no trouble plotting points and
computing slopes, other factors must be responsible. In order to describe these factors
contributing to student difficulty with graph the researchers supplied questions to
university and high school students over a several year period. The students from
University of Washington were in algebra or calculus-based physics courses. The high
school students were in either physics or physical science classes. The researchers
identified several specific difficulties from each these categories: difficulty in connecting
graphs to physical concepts and difficulty connecting graphs to the real world. When
students tried to connect graphs to physical concepts they had difficulty with:
1. discriminating between slope and height of a graph
2. interpreting changes in height and changes in slope
15
3. relating one graph to another
4. matching narrative information with relevant features of the graph
5. interpreting the area under a graph
When students tried to connect the graph to the real world they had difficulty with:
1. representing continuous motion by a continuous line
2. separating the shape of a graph from the path of the motion
3. representing a negative velocity on a velocity vs. time graph
4. representing constant acceleration on an acceleration vs. time graph
5. distinguishing among types of motion graphs
The three difficulties of particular interest to the proposed study included matching
narrative information with relevant features of a graph, interpreting changes in height and
changes in slope and representing continuous motion by a continuous line. One of the
tasks in Graphing Stories was to write a story to match a graph and vice a versa. When
utilizing the Vernier motion probes, students actually saw how their continuous motion
was represented by a continuous line on the graph. Students also noticed that when they
moved faster the slope was steeper and when they moved slower the slope was not as
steep. McDermott et al. stated that it has been our experience that literacy in graphical
representation often does not develop spontaneously and that intervention in the form of
direct instruction is needed.
Research done by Beichner (1994) showed many similarities to other studies. He
identified a consistent set of difficulties students faced when interpreting graphs:
misinterpreting graphs as pictures, slope/height confusion, difficulty finding slopes of
lines not passing through the origin and interpreting the area under the graph. He
16
analyzed data from 895 high school and college students. The goal of the study was to
uncover kinematics graph problems and propose a test used as a diagnostic tool for
evaluation of instruction. Implications from the study included:
1. Teachers need to be aware of the graphing problems.
2. Students need to understand graphs before they are used a language of
instruction.
3. Teachers must choose their words carefully.
4. Teachers should give students a large variety of motion situations for careful,
graphical examination and explanation.
Beichner stated that students must be given the opportunity to consider their own ideas
about kinematics graphs and must be encouraged to help modify those ideas when
necessary. Instruction that asks students to predict graph shapes, collect the relevant data
and then compare results to predictions appears to be especially suited to promoting
conceptual change (Dykastra, 1992). Incorporating the MBL approach and real-time data
collection seemed key to the focus of this study.
Many eighth grade students have not been exposed to the idea of slope prior to
being expected to produce and interpret motion graphs. Even though algebra classes
require students to take part in problems calculating slope, students do not understand the
idea of slope as rate of change. Crawford & Scott (2000) found that by observing tables
and graphs, students learn to describe and extend patterns, create equations with variables
to represent patterns, and make predictions on the basis of these patterns. In order to help
students conceptualize slope as a rate of change, Crawford & Scott suggested three
modes of learning: visualization, verbalization, and symbolization. Instead of calculating
17
slope from an equation, they stated it was useful to start with a graph then produce a table
of data and an equation that matched the rate of change. Once the students understood
that slope describes the rate of change it was particularly useful to have students compare
graphs and slopes for two rates side by side. Using information from media that students
were exposed to, like news from the internet, as an application for teaching slope can
increase interest and connect it to the real world. Often times collected data does not fit
perfectly onto one line and require a scatter plot to make sense of it. For example, even
seemingly random data like that shown in Figure 1 can be described through slope.
Figure 1. Line of best fit for land speed records. Reprinted from Making Sense of Slope by A.R Crawford & W.E Scott (2000). The Mathematics Teacher, 93, page 117.
Crawford & Scott (2000) stated that from their own experiences teaching algebra,
they observed many students calculate slopes and write equations for a line without
understanding the concept of slope. They asserted that when assessing student
understanding of slope, it was imperative for assessments to ask students to provide
18
rationale through written or oral responses. This rationale provided rich information
regarding a student’s understanding of slope.
Hale (2000) reinforced ideas from McDermott, Rosenquist & van Zee (1987) and
Crawford & Scott (2000) when she stated students have trouble with motion graphs even
when they understand the mathematical concepts. The author restated the student graph
difficulties stated in McDermott et al. (1987). Hale’s goal was to report possible
underlying causes and provide promising remedies to these problems. When
discriminating between the slope and the height of a graph, students often make the
“simple mistake” of misreading the axes. A discussion in this situation may reveal that,
“a student’s principles may be reasonable, but they may not generalize to the given
situation” (Hale, 2000), p. 415. When comparing two types of graphs, like a position
graph and a velocity graph, students often expect them to look similar. Personal
experience has shaped the way students understand distance, velocity and acceleration.
Hale argued that we cannot simply ask students to abandon their concepts and replace
them with ours. Monk (1994) offered the following remedies:
an emphasis on conceptual as opposed to procedural learning-on understanding
the ideas as opposed to knowing how to do the procedures
an emphasis on relating the mathematical ideas to real situations
classroom formats that encourage discussion, especially among students, in
contrast to lecturing and telling by the teacher
Along with these proposed solutions, Hale suggested that teachers put emphasis on using
the physical activity involved with an MBL setting. In order for students to repair their
19
misconceptions they must be put in a learning situation, like in the proposed study, where
they are confronted by them.
Probeware
In order to become literate in science students must be able to observe the world
around them. This starts when an infant picks up an object and places it in their mouth.
They are curious and use their mouth, fingers and toes to answer questions. In the
beginning of the school year, a teacher may ask students, “How do you observe the world
around you?” Most students correctly respond with, “ We use our senses.” The sense of
touch is great way for determining hot and cold but no so good for determining the exact
temperature. We can extend our sense of touch with a thermometer. A themometer
probe is a thermometer that is connected to a computer and can make hundreds of
accurate reading in a short amount of time. Probeware refers to to any computer aided
device that accurately takes data (temperature, pH, motion, light intensity, etc.);it often
simulanteously creates a graphical representation. Several studies investigated how
probeware can enhance students abitliy to interpret graphs.
Creating graphs and working with mathematical functions is often the first time
students work with a symbolic system that represents data. Pullano (2005) pointed out
several difficulties associated with graphical representations of functions. “Slope/height
confusion” and “iconic interpretation” are common misconceptions. When asked in a
distance vs. time graph, students will often choose a lesser slope to represent a car going
faster. Is the car B traveling faster on less slope because it looks like a hill with less
incline? Students exhibit “iconic interpretation” which means viewing a graph literally
20
rather than as a representation of data. A positive slope followed by a negative slope
looks like a mountain rather that an object moving forward and backward.
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 2 4 6 8 10
time
dis
tan
ce
Car A
Car B
Figure 2 A distance versus time graph for two cars. Adapted from Using Probeware to Improve Students' Graph Interpretation Abilities by F. Pullano (2005). School Science and Mathematics, 105(7).
In Pullano (2005), the goal of the study was to detemine the effects a probe-based
instructional intervention had on eighth-grade students abilities to accurately interpret
contextual grap functions locally, globally, quantitatively and qualitatively. Ultrasonic
motion detectors, themometers, air pressure sensors and light intensity sensors were used
by small groups to collect physical phenomena. The results follow:
1. Students developed a formal understanding of slope which is the rate of change of
one variable with respect to another,
2. By incorporating appropriate language and ideas learned from previous graphing
activities, students used prior knowledge to correctly interpret graphs of
unfamiliar contexts.
21
3. The iconic interpretation exhibited in pre-activity interview was absent from final
interviews. (page 374)
Pullano’s study had a very clear explanation of two graphing misconceptions, which
shaped the proposed research design of this study.
Many people have difficulty with math because they do not see a way to connect
it to their life. In a dissertation by Murphy (2004), she stated that the goal of her study
was to help a large number of students to understand the concepts of calculus in a way
that they could use effectively to address real problems. She first identfied two common
misconceptions: graph as pictures or “GAP” and slope/height confusion. In GAP,
students think of a line graph as a road map with the vertical axis as the north/south
component and the horizontal axis as the east/west component. Students can correctly
interpret a map, but incorrectly apply this interpretation to other more abstract,
representations of motion (Murphy, 2004). When asked to draw a graph representing a
walk to and from a specific location students often create a the graph similar to Figure 3
but should look like Figure 4. In slope/height confusion, students focus on the height of
the graph rather than the incline of the slope when interpreting graphs. Both of these
misinterpretations have been reported in middle school and high school students, college
and university undergraduates and middle school teachers.
22
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 1 2 3 4 5
time
dis
tan
ce
Figure 3. The wrong way to represent a walk to and from a specific location. Adapted from Using Computer-based Laboratories to Teach Graphing Concepts and the Derivative at the College Level by L.D. Murphy (2004) Dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA, p. 10.
0
1
2
3
4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
time
dis
tan
ce
Figure 4. The right way to represent a walk to and from a specific location. Adapted from Using Computer-based Laboratories to Teach Graphing Concepts and the Derivative at the College Level by L.D. Murphy (2004) Dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA, p. 10.
23
Murphy (2004) compared two methods of teaching derivatives to students in
introductory calculus by using computer graphing technology. The first method, MBL,
although shown to be useful, was expensive and inconvenient. The second method
utilized a Java applet. The student moved a stick across the screen and the computer
produced a position graph. Murphy stated that earlier researchers had speculated that the
motion sensor approach relies on whole-body motion and kinesthetic sense, which
suggested that the Java approach, in which motion of the whole body over several feet is
replaced by moving a hand a few inches, might not be successful. Prior to and after the
instruction the sixty students were given an assessment and an attitude survey. Twenty
eight students used the Java applet and thirty two students used the MBL method. The
preinstructional measures indicated that the two groups were similar in graphing
knowledge. The achievement tests indicated that both methods of instruction helped
students improve their abitlity to interpret motion graphs. Murphy was in favor of the
using the Java applet for her classes in the future because the cost is substantially less
than that of the the motion sensors. Like Pullano (2005), Murphy clearly demonstrated
graphing misconceptions.
In order for students to gain the benefits of probeware, teachers must be trained to
use the technology. Vonderwall, Sparrow and Zachariah (2005) described the
implementation and results of a project designed to train teachers to use an inquiry-based
approach to science education with the help of emerging handheld technology. Both
elementary and middle school teachers learned how to integrate probeware into inquiry-
based science lessons. The professional development session lasted two weeks during
24
which teachers used Palm probes to measure water quality indicators such as pH,
pollution levels, water temperature and dissoved oxygen. The projects had several goals:
1. expose teachers to inquiry-based science and emerging technologies
2. improve the access to underserved and underrepresented populations with
emerging technologies
3. augment an inquiry-based science curriculum using probeware
4. give access to information and ideas developed in the session by creating a
website
The purpose of the study was to find the answers to these questions:
1. What are teachers’ percieved proficiency about inquiry-based lessons utilizing
probeware?
2. Are these technologies accessible?
3. Is a professional development program useful?
4. What are teachers’ experiences and perspectives on probeware used in inquiry
based lessons?
With focus on high-need schools districts in Ohio, twenty three teachers
participated in the program. A pre and post Likert scale survey and open-ended question
discussion were implemented to answer the questions above. Teachers were also asked
to implement inquiry-based lessons in their own classrooms and report any benefits or
problems. The results indicated that many teachers changed from feeling not proficient
prior to the program to feeling moderately proficient after the program. In terms of
accessibilty (1 = no access and 5 = very accessible) to technology, teachers answers
ranged between 1.3 to 4.0. During the open-ended questions regarding the usefulness of
25
the program as professional development, all of the teachers felt the program was very
helpful. Although some of the teachers reported problems and issues with the
implementation of the inquiry-based lesson with probeware, the general feeling was that
they valued the fact that students could collect, read and analyze real-life data.
Vonderwall et al. (2005) reported that all teachers reported increased student motivation
and excitement by using technology to learn science concepts. Similarly, this study will
feed on students’ motivation for technology use to reinforce inquiry.
Metcalf and Tinker (2004) reported on the feasibility of probeware through cost
consideration, teacher professional growth and instructional design. Teaching force and
motion and energy transformation is difficult and can be eased with use of probeware.
The goal of this study was to develop two units that implement alternative low-cost
hardware in order to make technology based science lessons accessible to all. Metcalf
and Tinker (2004) stated by demonstrating student learning of these difficult concepts
with economical technologies and practical teacher professional development, we would
have a powerful argument for a broad curriculum development effort using this approach.
Metcalf and Tinker suggested using handheld computers and “homemade” probes rather
than a full computer system and a probe to reduce cost. In this study, students used a
motion detector called a SmartWheel, a do-it-yourself force probe, a temperature probe
and a voltage/current meter. Thirty different classes, between 6-10 grade, with the
number of students ranging from 6-47 participated in the study. Each unit (force and
motion and energy transformation) took between 9 and 20 days to complete. Pre and
post-tests were used to assess student preformance. Surveys and interviews were used to
collect teacher insight. When analyzing the student data, Metcalf focused on specific test
26
questions. For the force and motion unit, they found a 28% improvement on a question
that asks students to choose the graph that represents the motion of a cart moving forward
and backwards. For the energy transformation unit, they found an 11% improvement on
a question that asked about heat flow on a temperature vs. time graph. Metcalf and
Tinker (2004) stated that post-interviews with teachers found that student learning was
enhanced through the use of the probes and handhelds for data gathering and
visualizations. Some other findings from teacher interviews include: the probes worked
well, teachers were excited about the using technology in the classroom and were eager
to use it again in their classrooms. Teachers were successful in conducting investigations
utilizing probes and handheld technologies and students made the correlation between
phenomena and modeling, which in turn reduced misconception. The idea that
probeware helps students learn the difficult concepts of force and motion supports the
goal of the proposed study.
All four studies reviewed reported a decrease in graphing misconceptions because
of the use of probeware. Pullano (2005) and Murphy (2004) used substantial evidence
through literature review to clearly describe two graphing misconceptions: GAP or iconic
interpretation and slope/height confusion. Both Metcalf and Tinker (2004), and
Vonderwall et al. (2005) focused some of their attention on professional growth.
Technology does not have much chance for success if teachers do not know how to
implement it. Only two studies, Murphy and Vonderwall et al., presented their results in
an easily understandable format. Metcalf and Pullano’s conclusions were not completely
clear or convincing. Murphy as well as Metcalf and Tinker focused much attention on
the issue of cost and making technology accessible to all. Although MJHS has a
27
partnership with UC Berkeley and has access to laptops and motion probes, it is
important to always consider the cost issue because resources have a tendency to
disappear. Vonderwall et al. and Metcalf and Tinker found success with Palm handheld
computers. The proposed study utilized Vernier probes, which filled the same niche as
the Palm handhelds.
Summmary
According to constructivism, people learn through experiences. Sometimes the
experiences contribute to correct concepts of reality and sometimes experiences
contribute to misconceptions. Hale (2000) maintained that these difficulties are often
based on misconceptions that are rooted in the student’s own experiences. It is the job of
teachers to find these misconceptions and correct them. Interpreting graphs correctly
seems to be a problem for many middle school students. They have trouble gleaning
information from them and producing graphs that represent the corresponding data
correctly. These issues may be caused by the inability to reason in an abstract manner or
because they have limited experiences from which to draw. Teachers have strategies to
help combat these graphing misconceptions. Inquiry-based learning as cited by
Chiappeta (1997) and Colburn (2000) is the most widely accepted vocabulary word to
describe science education. Inquiry-based learning, a pedagogy of constructivism,
focused on the idea that students learn by doing. The teacher acts as a facilitator and
guides the students gently as they migrate through an investigation in which they ask the
questions, decide the procedure, collect and interpret data, make inferences and
conclusions. Inquiry-based learning comes in many forms, but all require that students
have most of the control of their learning. Deters (2005) claimed that even though
28
inquiry-based lesson requires significantly more effort by the teacher and the student, the
effort is worth it. If a student takes part in a few inquiry-based lessons each year during
their middle and high school experience, the fear of “doing science” will be eliminated.
The Graphing Stories project is an inquiry-based activity aimed at correcting student
misconceptions that arise when they must interpret graphs. Interpreting graphs is one of
the most crucial skills in science, especially physics. McDermott, Rosenquist & van Zee
(1987) maintained that students who have no trouble plotting points and computing
slopes cannot apply what they have learned about graphs from their study of mathematics
to physics. There must be other factors, aside from their mathematical background that
are responsible. It is the job of the teacher according to Beichner (1994) to be aware of
these factors and use a wide variety of inquiry-based strategies like the activities in
Graphing Stories. It takes advantage of probeware, specifically Vernier motion probes,
which has been shown by research to help students interpret graphs correctly. The
common misconceptions students have while interperting graphs, according to Pullano
(2000) and Murphy (2004), are iconic interpretation and slope/height confusion. In order
for probeware to be successfully implemented there must be teacher training and
sufficient funds. Metcalf and Tinker (2004) stated that by demonstrating student learning
of these difficult concepts with economical technologies and practical teacher
professional development, we would have a powerful argument for a broad curriculum
development effort using this approach. Some of the implications of the proposed study,
utilizing the MBL approach, are that teachers must identify graphing misconceptions,
design and implement appropriate inquiry-based techniques that present a wide variety of
29
graphing activites, and have confidence that the experiences they provide accurately
model how a student preceives the “real” world.
30
Chapter III
The focus of this research was to explore the effect of using motion probes and
how they may increase student understanding of motion graphs. Middle school science
students need every advantage they can get in order to keep up with the mandated
California state curriculum. This study investigated the problem of graphing
misconceptions through a WISE 4.0 project called Graphing Stories that seamlessly
embedded the use of Vernier motion probes into a series of steps that teach students how
to interpret position vs. time graphs. This MBL experience allowed students to
simultaneously perform a motion and see an accurate position vs. time graph produced on
a computer screen. This program gave students an opportunity to learn graphing
concepts by the nature of its design. Students started with a firm foundation provided to
them by reviewing position and motion, were given significant practice through the use
of the program and were required to take part in several forms of assessment. Observing
multiple classes of students while using the Graphing Stories program and the motion
probes, revealed that simply using this MBL type approach may not be enough to change
how students learn motion graphing. Preliminary evidence showed that while the use of
the MBL tools to do traditional physics experiments may increase the students’ interest,
such activities do not necessarily improve student understanding of fundamental physics
concepts (Thornton and Sokoloff, 1990). Others suggested that the MBL approach works
only if the technology is used correctly. This study tested the hypothesis of whether
students gain a better understanding of graphing concepts after working with Vernier
motion probes and Graphing Stories than the students who work without the motion
probes.
31
Through the design of their curriculum, the science teacher guides students into a
cognitive process of discovery through experimentation. Piaget’s (1952) learning theory
of constructivism reinforced this idea by suggesting that a person’s “real” world
manifests itself through a combination of all the events a person has experienced.
Teachers must ensure students do not fill the gaps of knowledge with incorrect thoughts
while learning from a “self-discovery” lesson. This idea of experimentation and “self
discovery” is known as inquiry-based learning which builds on the pedagogy of
constructivism. Inquiry-based learning, when authentic, complements the constructivist
learning environment because it allows the individual student to tailor their own learning
process (Kubieck, 2005). Motion probe usage involves students in an inquiry-based
learning process.
The literature suggested that there are benefits, Chiappetta (1997) and Colburn
(2005), and problems, Deters (2005), with inquiry-based learning. In Deters, teachers
gave reasons for not using inquiry: loss of control, safety issues, use more class time, fear
of abetting student misconceptions, spent more time grading labs and students have many
complaints. Even though many teachers were reluctant to incorporate inquiry-based
lessons into their curriculum, it was suggested that they may only need to utilize them a
few times to be beneficial. Again in Deters, if students perform even a few inquiry-based
labs each year throughout their middle school and high school careers, by graduation they
will be more confident, critical-thinking people who are unafraid of “doing science”. The
proposed study attempted to teach students how to interpret graphs utilizing an inquiry-
based strategy in computer-supported environment.
32
To be successful in science, especially physics, it is imperative that students
understand how to connect graphs to physical concepts and connecting graphs to the real
world. Since students consistently exhibit the same cognitive difficulty with graphing
concepts, teachers must incorporate the strategies stated in the interpreting graphs section
of Chapter 2 into their curriculum, like giving students a variety of graphing situations
and choosing words carefully. The proposed study utilized probeware in the form of
Vernier motion probes to help combat the difficulties of interpreting graphs. Metcalf and
Tinker (2004) did warn that in order for probeware to be successful, teachers must be
properly trained their usage.
Background and Development of the Study
Year after year, students come into the science classroom without the proper
cognitive tools for learning how to interpret graphs. Few students know what the
mathematical term slope is let alone how to calculate slope. Luckily adolescents are
developing their abstract thinking skills and learning slope is not a problem. One major
issue at work here is that the curriculum materials adopted by MJHS assume that eighth
grade students already know slope concepts. District mandated pacing guides allow no
time for teaching the concept of slope. This study proposed that utilizing probeware,
like Vernier motion probes, might equalize the cognitive tools the between the students. .
Nicolaou, Nicolaidou, Zacharias, & Constantinou (2007) stated that real-time graphing,
made possible by data logging software, helps to make the abstract properties being
graphed behave as though they were concrete and manipulable. It was hoped that the
experience of using the motion probes and the software would also allow more time to
address graphing misconceptions.
33
At the time of this study, WISE 4.0 was new technology which seemed to have a
promising future. The unique partnership of UC Berkeley (home of the WISE project)
and the middle school site allowed teachers at the middle school to implement WISE 4.0
curriculum without additional funds. UC Berkeley provided laptops computers, a wifi
router, probeware and graduate and post-graduate researchers for support.
WISE 4.0 Graphing Stories was first available for use in fall 2009. Eighth grade
physical science students at the middle school research site were among the first students
to participate in this innovative program. Teachers using the program immediately took
notice of increased student engagement with the program and the motion probes. In
2009, teachers did not compare results of students utilizing motion probes with students
who did not. However, there was a general perception that motion probe usage was
beneficial. The purpose of this study was to scientifically document whether this
perception was accurate.
Components of the Study
This project had two main research questions:
Does an MBL approach increases student understanding of graphing concepts?
Does motion probe usage increases student engagement?
Along with the main research questions come several secondary objectives which
include: utilize the unique opportunity of the partnership between UC Berkeley and
MJHS, reinforce the idea that the project Graphing Stories is an inquiry based learning
tool and utilize students’ enthusiasm for technology.
One purpose of technology is to improve the quality of our lives. This includes
improving the way teachers provide access to information for students. Today’s students
34
are digital natives (Prensky, 2001) and have enthusiasm for technology. The MBL
approach was developed in the 1980’s with the invention of microcomputers, which is
considered old technology today. The microcomputer-based laboratory utilized a
computer, a data collection interface, electronic probes, and graphing software, allowing
students to collect, graph, and analyze data in real-time. Use of MBL would seem to be a
natural way to engage digital learners yet, it appears that this idea has not really caught
on even though many agree that it is successful. Two reasons may be preventing its
usage:
1. It is expensive to set-up a MBL.
2. Teachers are not properly trained in and are not asked to implement an MBL
approach.
Research has not proven that an MBL approach is superior to traditional methods.
The idea that technology is a valuable learning tool was supported by the literature
surrounding the use of the MBL approach or probeware. In general, research suggested
that MBL is helpful, but did not prove its benefits.
Metcalf and Tinker (2004) suggested that the cost of probeware is part of the
reason why more teachers are not using them. The secondary objective of utilizing the
unique opportunity of the partnership between UC Berkeley and Martinez Junior High
School negates the issue of cost. WISE 4.0 has been funded by a series of grants written
by Marcia Linn, the senior researcher for the WISE project. WISE 4.0 Graphing Stories,
a free program accessible through wise4.telscenter.org, is considered to be an inquiry-
based learning tool.
35
Inquiry-based learning is often considered the goal of science instruction. The
secondary teaching objective to reinforce the idea that the project Graphing Stories as an
inquiry based learning tool and utilize students’ enthusiasm for technology came about
because of this method of delivery. Strategies and techniques that are used by successful
science teachers include: asking questions, science process skills, discrepant events,
inductive and deductive activites, information gathering and problem solving (Chiappeta,
1997). These strategies, provided through Graphing Stories, indirectly push students into
learning science concepts through self-discovery. The motion probe and accompaning
software encouraged students to move around and create personalized position vs. time
graphs as many times as they pleased. This teaching objective was measured by asking
students to report on their perception of how motion probes affected their engagement.
Methodology
This study examined whether the use of Vernier motion probes and related
software increased student understanding of position vs. time graphs. Since the
researcher taught 4 eighth grade classes, it was decided to utilize a convenience sample
for this study. Data collection took place from October 7-14, 2010. Two classes (n =
64) were the control group; meaning that they did not use motion probes. The other two
classes (n = 61) used the motion probes and related software. All classes were given a
pre and post-test and a post-instructional survey. The pre-test was administered prior to
implementing WISE 4.0 Graphing Stories. All classes worked through the project, which
took 5 -50 minute sessions. Several steps in the project asked students to utilize motion
probes. The control group was asked to complete a task that that did not involve the
motion probe. This allowed for both groups to have different graphing experiences but
36
be engaged an equal amount of time. The post-test was given after both groups
completed Graphing Stories. The purpose of collecting qualitative data from the student
survey, Student Perceptions of Motion Probes (see Appendix B), was to get a sense of
students’ opinions regarding the use of motion probes when they learn how to graph
motion. It was hoped that both motion probe users and non motion probe users would
feel that motion probe usage increased student engagement.
Sequence of events.
1. All students given a pre-test (see Appendix A)
2. All students participated in Graphing Stories exercise in which they are given
a graph and a story that matches
a. Experimental group used Vernier motion probes to test their
prediction of how the graph was created in real time
b. Control group did not do this step
3. All students asked to write a personal story involving motion and to create a
matching position vs. time graph
a. Experimental group used Vernier motion probes to test their
prediction of how the graph was created in real time
b. Control group did not do this step
4. All students given a post-test (see Appendix A)
5. All students given the student survey, Student Perceptions of Motion Probes
(see Appendix B)
The pre-test (Appendix A) consisted of twelve questions that asked students to
draw various simple position vs. time graphs. The post-test (Appendix A) consisted of
37
the same twelve questions as the pre-test plus a graph depicting a race followed by six
questions that tested for understanding.
Results
In Figures 5 and 6, the motion probe users were compared to non motion probe
users. Figure 5 shows a frequency distribution of the scores all students earned on the
pre-test. The scores were grouped into ten percent intervals. The range of scores on the
pre-test was from 12.5% to 100%. Of the motion probe users, 10% had already mastered
the interpretation of position vs. time graphs as compared to12% of the non motion probe
users.
Figure 6 shows a frequency distribution of the scores all students earned on the
post-test. The score were again grouped into ten percent intervals. The range of scores
on the post-test was from 6% to 100%. Of the motion probe users, 37% had mastered the
interpretation of position vs. time graphs as compared to 34% of the non motion probe
users. Since the pre-tests were given anonymously, it was impossible to present the data
in matched pairs. Unexpectedly, one student from each group performed at a lower level
than they had in the pre-test.
38
Pre-Test Scores
1 1 12
56
56
12
23
12
0
2
5
78
13
6
23
0
5
10
15
20
25
0-9% 19-10% 29-20% 39-30% 49-40% 59-50% 69-60% 79-70% 89-80% 100-90%
test scores
nu
mb
er
of
stu
de
nts
motion probe user non motion probe user
Figure 5. Frequency distribution of the pre-test scoresNon motion probe users n = 64; motion probe users n = 61
Post-Test Scores
0
10
12 12
1
11
4
3
2
6
0
7
10 10
4
7
10
6
2
8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0-9% 19-10% 29-20% 39-30% 49-40% 59-50% 69-60% 79-70% 89-80% 100-90%
test scores
nu
mb
er
of
stu
de
nts
motion probe user non motion probe user
Figure 6. Frequency distribution of the post-test scores Non motion probe users n = 67; motion probe users n = 62
39
Tables 1, 2 and 3 show the frequency distribution of student responses to the
survey questions regarding the usefulness of motion probes, motion probes and student
engagement and the advantage of motion probes.
Table 1
Frequency Distribution of Responses to the Questions Regarding the Usefulness of Motion Probes.
Would not be able to learn
without them
very helpful helpful
not helpful
made it more
difficult for motion
probe users to
learn
Question 1 MOTION PROBE USER Motion probe user: How useful do you think the motion probes were in helping you learn about position vs. time graphs? 5 20 37 1 0Question 7 NON-MOTION PROBE USER NOT a motion probe user: How useful do you think using the motion probes is for learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs? Remember you are making a judgment for those who actually used them. 1 15 47 8 1
totals for both groups 6 35 84 9 1
40
Table 2
Frequency Distribution of Responses to the Questions Regarding Motion Probes and Student Engagement.
motion probes made
the lesson something to
remember
motion probes
made the lesson more
engaging
motion probes did
not necessarily
engage them
motion probes
made the lesson less
engaging Question 4 MOTION PROBE USER Motion probe user: Did using motion probes help you become more engaged in the learning process? 11 45 5 0Question 10 NON-MOTION PROBE USER NOT a motion probe user: Do you think using motion probes made the lesson more engaging for the student who used them? 6 35 13 0totals for both groups 17 80 18 0
Table 3
Frequency Distribution of Responses to the Questions Regarding the Advantage of a Motion Probe.
advantageno
advantagedo not know
Question 5 MOTION PROBE USER Motion probe user: Do you feel you had an advantage over the students who did not utilize the motion probes in learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs? Please explain 52 8 0Question 11 NON-MOTION PROBE USER NOT a motion probe user: Do you feel students who used the motion probes had an advantage over the students who did not utilize the motion probes in learning how to interpret position vs. time 42 11 1totals for both groups 94 19 1
41
The data from the survey entitled, Student Perceptions of Motion Probes, revealed the
following preceptions of motion probes:
93% (125/135) of the students felt the motion probe was useful (motion probe
users) or thought it would be useful (non motion probe users) for learning about
position vs. time graphs, and 7% (10/135) felt the motion probe was not useful.
84% (97/115) of the students felt the motion probe made the lesson more
engaging, and 16% (18/115) felt the motion probe made the lesson either not
engaging or less engaging.
83% (94/113) of the students felt the motion probe users had an advantage over
non motion probe users in learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs, and
17% (19/113) felt there was no advantage.
Analysis
The unpaired t-test was used to compare the motion probe users and the non
motion probe users groups for both the pre and post-test. The unpaired t-test was chosen
because the sample sizes between the groups were not equal.
Results of the pre-test. There was no significant difference between the motion
probe users and the non motion probe users in initial knowledge of how to interpret
position vs. time graphs (t = 1.3256, d.f. = 123, P = 0.1874 p = .05). This result supported
the desired outcome of having the two groups start with equal understanding of position
vs. time graphs.
Results of the post-test. The post-test results showed no significant difference
between the motion probe users and the non motion probe users (t = 0.6595, d.f. = 127, P
42
= 0.5107 p = .05) in knowledge of how to interpret position vs. time graphs. This result
did not give results to support the desired outcome of having the two groups end with
unequal understanding of position vs. time graphs, i.e. the group that used the motion
probes was expected to perform better. The researcher must accept the null hypothesis
which states that students will not have a better understanding of graphing concepts after
working with Vernier motion probes and Graphing Stories than the students who work
without the motion probes.
Results of student survey. Although the pre and post-test results suggested that
an MBL approach does not necessarily increase student understanding of graphing
concepts, the student survey, Student Perceptions of Motion Probes(see Appendix B), did
help answer the research question regarding motion probe usage and student engagement.
The answers given by both the motion probe and non motion probes users clearly
demonstrated that motion probe usage was beneficial in terms of increasing student
engagement when working with position vs. time graphs.
An informal review of students’ actions while utilizing the motion probes
revealed valuable insight to how they view position vs. time graphs. Similar to Lapp and
Cyrus (2000), students did not understand the information the graph was presenting (Fig.
7). Instead of moving back and forth along a straight line to produce a graph that
matched the distance time information given, students typically walked in a path that
resembled the shape of the original graph, Lapp and Cyrus (2000). The probe is not able
to detect the path of motion many students tried to follow (Fig. 8).
43
Figure 7. Distance Time Graph for Student Investigation. Reprinted from D. Lapp & V.
Cyrus (2000). Using Data-Collection Devices to Enhance Students’ Understanding.
Mathematics Teacher, 93(6) p. 504.
Figure 8. Path of Walker. Reprinted from D. Lapp & V. Cyrus (2000). Using Data-
Collection Devices to Enhance Students’ Understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93(6) p.
504.
Summary
The responsibility of teaching eighth grade students how to interpret position vs.
time graphs has been slowed by a significant hurdle. The California State Standards
44
assumes that eighth grade students know how to interpret and calculate slope. It is
considered an abstract concept and not taught until well into the algebra curriculum.
Many students do not even take Algebra until high school. Physical science curriculum
requires students to understand slope prior to it being taught how to graph motion.
Working with UC, Berkeley, MJHS teachers have been lucky to utilize WISE 4.0,
specifically Graphing Stories. The researcher discovered a new technology (Graphing
Stories and Vernier motion probes) and decided to use it. Even though research of the
MBL approach has failed to prove its worth, many still claim it to be beneficial provided
that it is used correctly. This study was based on the hypothesis that motion probes usage
would help students interpret position vs. time graphs better than student who did not use
motion probes. Analysis of data revealed that the Vernier motion probe did not give its
users an advantage over the non-users in interpreting motion graphs. A student survey,
however, found that students felt the motion probes made the lesson more engaging.
45
Chapter IV
This study examined a problem with the sequence of the California State
Standards which expect eighth grade students to understand and calculate slope prior to
the exposure to the physical science curriculum. This expectation is based on the
assumption that students have previous experience with the mathematical concept of
slope. In fact, in the mathematics sequence, the concept of slope is not introduced to
math students until well into the algebra curriculum. Students who have developed their
abstract thinking skills and are competent in mathematics have no trouble with slope
regardless of prior instruction. Students who are just developing their abstract thinking
skill and/or poor in mathematics have a difficult time with the concept of slope.
This creates a knowledge gap when it is time for a middle school science teacher
to teach motion graphs. This study was conceived in response to observations by the
researcher after utilizing WISE 4.0, Graphing Stories and Vernier motion probes that
there was a change in student behavior when they learned how interpret position vs. time
graphs using those tools. This study attempted to quantify the degree of change when
using the combination of Graphing Stories and motion probes to teach motion graphs.
This combination of tools is considered to be an MBL approach, which refers to any
technique that connects a physical event to immediate graphic representation.
This study had similar outcomes to Brungardt and Zollman (1995) who found no
significant differences between learning with real-time and delay-time analysis, but did
notice that students using MBLs appeared to be more motivated and demonstrated more
discussion in their groups. The purpose of this study was to show that motion probe
46
usage, despite the knowledge gap, would help students interpret position vs. time graphs
better than the previous non-motion probe teaching techniques.
Study Outcomes
This study tested the hypothesis that students would have a better understanding
of graphing concepts after working with Vernier motion probes and Graphing Stories
than the students who work without the motion probes. Two main research questions
guided the study:
Does an MBL approach increases student understanding of graphing concepts?
Does motion probe usage increases student engagement?
Along with the main research questions come several secondary goals which included:
utilize the unique opportunity of the partnership between UC Berkeley and MJHS,
reinforce the idea that the project Graphing Stories is an inquiry based learning tool and
utilize students’ enthusiasm for technology.
Even though the researcher had access to approximately 130 eighth grade
students, the experimental and control group samples could not be randomly assigned.
The only option was to utilize the fact that the students were separated into four classes
and create a convenience sample. This may have caused the samples to be slightly
biased.
The four classes were separated into two groups of two classes each, one group
was designated the motion probe users and other became the non-motion probe users.
The pre-test results found the groups to be similar in their position vs. time graph
knowledge. Both groups worked through the Graphing Stories lesson. The motion probe
users utilized the motion probes for several steps while the non motion users did not. The
47
post-test results also showed the groups to be similar in their position vs. time graph
knowledge.
Although the results did not show that an MBL approach increased student
understanding of graphing concepts, this result was consistent with the literature.
Preliminary evidence showed that while the use of the MBL tools to do traditional
physics experiments may increase the students’ interest, such activities do not necessarily
improve student understanding of fundamental physics concepts (Thornton and Sokoloff,
1990). This statement was also reinforced by the data from the student survey. Most
students felt that motion probes increased engagement and were advantageous for
learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs.
As for the other three goals, this study was successful. The partnership between
UC Berkeley and MJHS is still in effect as of fall 2010. Every WISE 4.0 project run is
followed by an in depth interview about successes, failures and ideas to improve WISE
projects. The fact that students are engaged in self-discovery and create individual
motion graphs and stories helps reinforce the idea that Graphing Stories is an inquiry
based learning tool. The students who took part in this study expressed enthusiasm for
utilizing technology when the student survey showed that motion probes increased
engagement. The finding of the researcher are to similar to Vonderwall et al. (2005) who
found that all teachers report increased student motivation and excitement by using
technology to learn science concepts.
Proposed Audience, Procedures and Implementation Timeline
The idea for this study spawned from the problem that the California State
Standards assumes that eighth grade students understand slope prior to entering physical
48
science class. They are not taught slope until well into algebra class (currently eighth
grade math). In the fall 2009, the researcher was introduced to Graphing Stories and the
use of motion probes. An increase in student engagement and possibly an improved
method of teaching motion graphs was noticed. In spring 2010 the researcher enrolled in
the Educational Technology masters program at Touro University. A small bit of
searching revealed that the approach being applied by using computers and motion
probes was called Microcomputer Based Laboratory (MBL). More searching revealed
that most literature stated the MBL approach was beneficial yet none had proven it. The
researcher noticed such a change in student behavior during the fall 2009 that the MBL
approach must be useful. Graphing Stories provided the perfect balance of implementing
the MBL approach, inquiry based learning, technology usage and teaching student how to
interpret motion graphs. Data collection started in October 2010. Two groups of
approximately 60 students were given a pre-test. After the students worked through the
project a post-test was given. Finally, a student survey was given to test for student
perceptions on the motion probes. Although the data did not reveal the desired result of
having the MBL approach be directly beneficial, it has supported the general findings of
much of the research surrounding graphing misconceptions, probeware and motion
graphs. This study has contributed to the field of education buy reinforcing the idea that
teachers can utilize emerging technologies, like probeware, to encourage students to learn
difficult concepts like motion graphing with enthusiasm.
The new age of student as digital natives is causing teachers to search for new
way to engage students. There is overwhelming competition for adolescent attention
with cell phones and video games leading the way. Teachers who are willing to
49
incorporate technology into their tool box (digital immigrants) are better off than those
who are afraid. Digital immigrants are trying to improve an educational system that is no
longer designed to meet the needs of today’s students. The researchers (UC Berkeley and
Concord Consortium) involved with WISE 4.0 have expressed interest in the finding of
this thesis. The proposed audience includes any person involved with education who
wants to utilize technology to increase student understanding and enthusiasm for learning
science concepts.
Evaluation of the Study
As stated earlier, the analysis of data revealed that the Vernier motion probe did
not give its users an advantage over the non-users in interpreting motion graphs. A
student survey, however, found that students felt the motion probes made the lesson more
engaging. The overwhelming agreement of students who felt usage of motion probes was
engaging and advantageous must be an indicator that they work. Another study with a
larger sample size (n=1000) and spread over several years might reveal a desired result.
Since eighth grade students are still developing their abstract thinking skills, the study
might work better with high school or college students. It is not feasible to ask in-depth
motion graphing questions to someone with limited graphing experience. In order to get
an accurate representation of a student’s knowledge of position vs. time graphs it is
imperative to ask thorough rather than superficial questions. Another limitation arises
when considering that the space for motion probe usage is about four feet by ten feet.
The space requirements are particularly inconvenient because all furniture has to be
cleared away Murphy (2004). In large classes, this is nearly impossible. The motion
probe users in this study had a space of about two feet by seven feet. A future study
50
should include a larger sample size over a longer period, in-depth questioning and ample
space for motion probe usage.
Summary
In general, research has revealed both positive correlation and no correlation
between real-time graphing of a physical event and improved interpreting graph skills as
compared to traditional motion graph lessons. Substituting the MBL approach for
traditional motion graphing lesson appeared to have no effect on improved interpreting
graphing skills according to the results of this study. Even though no correlation was
found, the researcher will continue to utilize Graphing Stories and motion probes to
teaching motion graphing. Graphing Stories provided a perfect balance of inquiry-based
learning, technology and interpretation of position vs. time graphs. The student survey
reinforced the idea that technology in form of motion probes is helping the digital
immigrants to teach digital natives. Observing students work with motion probes
allowed the teacher to discover misconceptions that might go unnoticed like iconic
interpretation and slope/height confusion. Students walk out of the range of the motion
probe in an attempt to “draw” the picture that they think the graph represents. Students
also move slower, rather than faster, when they see a steeper slope because in reality the
steeper hill the slower you walk. A teacher unaware of these misconceptions will miss
the “teaching moment” when it arises.
51
References
Barclay, W. (1986). Graphing misconceptions and possible remedies using
microcomputer-based labs. Paper presented at the Seventh National Educational
Computing Conference, San Diego, CA June, 1986.
Beichner, R. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American
Journal of Physics, 62, 750-762.
Bernhard, J. (2003). Physics learning and microcomputer based laboratory (MBL):
Learning effects of using MBL as a technological and as a cognitive tool, in
Science Education Research in the Knowledge Based Society, D. Psillos, et al.,
(Eds.), Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 313-321.
Bohren, J. (1988). A nine month study of graph construction skills and reasoning
strategies used by ninth grade students to construct graphs of science data by hand
and with computer graphing software. Dissertation. Ohio State
University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 08A.
Boudourides, M. (2003). Constructivism, education, science, and technology. Canadian
Journal of Learning and Technology, 29(3), 5-20.
Brasell, H. (1987). The effects of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic
representations of distance and velocity. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 24, 385–95.
Brungardt, J., & Zollman, D. (1995). The influence of interactive videodisc instruction
using real-time analysis on kinematics graphing skills of high school physics
students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(8), 855-869.
52
Bryan, J. (2006). Technology for physics instruction. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 6(2), 230-245.
Chiappetta, E. (1997). Inquiry-based science. Science Teacher, 64(7), 22-26.
Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope.
Concord Consortium.(n.d.). Probeware: Developing new tools for data collection and
analysis. Retrieved November 23, 2010 from
http://www.concord.org/work/themes/probeware.html
Crawford, A. & Scott, W. (2000). Making sense of slope. The Mathematics Teacher, 93,
114-118.
Dykastra, D. (1992). Studying conceptual change in learning physics. Science Education,
76, 615-652.
Deters, K. (2005). Student opinions regarding inquiry-based labs, Journal of Chemical
Education, 82, 1178-1180.
Hale, P. (2000). Kinematics and graphs: Students' difficulties and cbls. Mathematics
Teacher, 93(5), 414-417.
Huber, R. & Moore, C. (2001). A model for extending hands-on science to be inquiry-
based. School Science and Mathematics, 101(1), 32-42.
Keating, D. (1990). Adolescent thinking. In At the threshold: The developing adolescent.
S.S. Feldman and G.R. Elliott, eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1990, pp. 54–89.
Kozhevnikov, M. & Thornton, R. (2006) Real-time data display, spatial visualization,
and learning force and motion concepts. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 15, 113-134.
53
Kubieck, J. (2005). Inquiry-based learning, the nature of science, and computer
technology: New possibilities in science education. Canadian Journal of Learning
and Technology. 31(1).
Lapp, D. (1997). A theoretical model for student perception of technological
authority. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Technology in
Mathematics Teaching, Koblenz, Germany, 29 September-2 October 1997.
Lapp, D. & Cyrus, V. (2000). Using Data-Collection Devices to Enhance Students’
Understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93(6), 504-510.
National Institute of Health. (2005). Doing science: The process of scientific inquiry.
http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih6/inquiry/guide/info_process-
a.htm
National Research Council. The National Science Education Standards. .(n.d.). Retrieved
July 23, 2010 from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?
record_id=4962&page=103
Nicolaou, C., Nicolaidou, I., Zacharia, Z., & Constantinou, C. (2007). Enhancing fourth
graders’ ability to interpret graphical representations through the use of
microcomputer-based labs implemented within an inquiry-based activity
sequence. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,
26(1), 75-99.
McDermott, L., Rosenquist, M., & van Zee, E. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting
graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55,
503-513.
54
Metcalf, S. & Tinker, R. (2004). Probeware and handhelds in elementary and middle
school science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 43–49.
Mokros, J. & Tinker, R. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children’s
ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 369-383.
Monk, S. (1994). How students and scientists change their minds. MAA invited address
at the Joint Mathematics Meetings, Cincinnati, Ohio, January
Murphy, L. (2004). Using computer-based laboratories to teach graphing concepts and
the derivative at the college level. Dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA
Nachmias, R. & Linn, M. (1987). Evaluations of science laboratory data: The role of
computer-presented information. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24,
491–506.
National Science Teachers Association. (1999). NSTA Position Statement: The use of
computers in science education. Retrieved November 23, 2010, from
http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/computers.aspx
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International
Universities Press.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. Translated by H. Weaver.
New York: Basic Books.
Piaget, J. (1972). Psychology and epistemology: Towards a theory of knowledge.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55
Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibrium of cognitive structures. New
York: Viking Press.
Piaget, J. (1980). The psychogenesis of knowledge and its epistemological
significance. In M. Piattelli-Palmarini (Ed.), Language and learning. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Pullano, F. (2005). Using probeware to improve students' graph interpretation abilities
School Science and Mathematics, 105(7).
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–2.
Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Shechtman, N., Hegedua, S., Hopkins, B., Knudsen, J., et al.
(2007). Scaling up SimCalc project: Can a technology enhanced curriculum
improve student learning of important mathematics? Technical Report 01. SRI
International.
Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Douglas, G. and Means, B. (2000). Changing how
and what children learn in school with computer-base technologies. The Future of
Children, 10, Children and Computer Technology (Autumn – Winter, 2000), pp.
76-101.
Testa, I., Mouray, G. and Sassi, E. (2002). Students’ reading images in kinematics: The
case of real-time graphs. International Journal of Science Education, 24,
235−256.
Sokoloff, D., Laws, P., and Thornton, R., (2007). Real time physics: active learning labs
transforming the introductory laboratory. European Journal of Physics, 28(3), 83-
94.
56
Thornton, R. (1986). Tools for scientific thinking: microcomputer-based laboratories for
the naive science learner. Paper presented at the Seventh National Educational
Computing Conference, San Diego, CA June, 1986.
Thornton, R. & Sokoloff, D. (1990). Learning motion concepts using real-time
microcomputer-based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58(9), 858-
867.
Tinker, R. (1986). Modeling and MBL: Software tools for science. Paper presented at the
Seventh National Educational Computing Conference, San Diego, CA June, 1986.
Vernier Software and Technology (n.d.), Motion Detectors, Retrieved on November 23,
2010 from http://www.vernier.com/probes/motion.html
Vonderwell, S., Sparrow, K. & Zachariah, S. (2005). Using handheld computers and
probeware in inquiry-based science education. Journal of the Research Center for
Educational Technology, Fall, 1-14.
WISE – Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (1998-2010). Retrieved on November
23, 2010 from http://wise.berkeley.edu/
WISE – Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (1998-2010). Graphing Stories.
Retrieved fall 2010 from http://wise4.telscenter.org/webapp/vle/preview.html?
projectId=17
57
Appendix A
Student Perception on Use of Motion Probes
Please answer the questions below as to help decide if using motion probes helps students learn how to interpret position vs. time graphs. If you are a student who used the motion probe please answer questions 1-6. If you are a student who did not use the motion probes please answer questions 7-12.
Question 1 MOTION PROBE USER Motion probe user: How useful do you think the motion probes were in helping you learn about position vs. time graphs? • Could not learn how to interpret position vs. time graphs without it • very helpful • helpful • not helpful • made it more difficult for me to interpret position vs. time graphs • Other: Question 2 MOTION PROBE USER Motion probe user: How difficult was it to figure out how to use the motion probe? • very easy to operate • some learning curve, but otherwise easy to operate • difficult to operate • never figured out how to operate • Other:
Question 3 MOTION PROBE USER Motion probe user: If you were responsible for teaching position vs. time graphs to others, would you utilize motion probes? • definitely utilize the motion probe • utilize the motion probe if convenient • take it or leave it • would not utilize • Other:
Question 4 MOTION PROBE USER Motion probe user: Did using motion probes help you become more engaged in the learning process?
58
• motion probes made the lesson something to remember • motion probes made the lesson more engaging • motion probes did not necessarily engage me • motion probes made the lesson less engaging • Other:
Question 5 MOTION PROBE USER Motion probe user: Do you feel you had an advantage over the students who did not utilize the motion probes in learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs? Please explain
Question 6 MOTION PROBE USER Motion probe user: Do you feel you are more prepared for the final assessment on position vs. time graphs than the non-motion probe users? • much more prepared • slightly more prepared • equally prepared • under prepared • Other:
Question 7 NON-MOTION PROBE USER NOT a motion probe user: How useful do you think using the motion probes is for learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs? Remember you are making a judgment for those that actually used them. • Would not be able to learn without them • very helpful • helpful • not helpful • made it more difficult for motion probe users to learn • Other:
Question 8 NON-MOTION PROBE USER NOT a motion probe user: Please describe the function of a motion probe to the best of your ability.
Question 9 NON-MOTION PROBE USER NOT a motion probe user: If you were responsible for teaching position vs. time graphs to others, would you utilize motion probes? • definitely utilize the motion probe • utilize the motion probe if convenient • take or leave it • would not utilize • Other:
Question 10 NON-MOTION PROBE USER NOT a motion probe user: Do you think using motion probes made the lesson more engaging for the student who used them? • motion probes made the lesson something to remember • motion probes made the lesson more engaging • motion probes did not necessarily engage them
59
• motion probes made the lesson less engaging • Other:
Question 11 NON-MOTION PROBE USER NOT a motion probe user: Do you feel students who used the motion probes had an advantage over the students who did not utilize the motion probes in learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs? Please explain
Question 12 NON-MOTION PROBE USER NOT a motion probe user: Do you feel you are more prepared for the final assessment on position vs. time graphs than the motion probe users? • much more prepared • slightly more prepared • equally prepared • under prepared • Other:
60
61
Appendix B
Pre /Post-test for Using Motion Probes to Enhance Students’ Understanding of Position vs. Time Graphs. Note: pre test only included questions 1-12
62
63
64
Wei-Lynn and Vijay's Race
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
time (seconds)
po
sit
ion
in
me
ters
finish line
Wei-Lynn
Vijay
13. What is the slope of each line?
Wei-Lynn______________ Vijay_______________
14. What is Wei-Lynn’s speed? (show work)
15. What is Vijay’s speed? (show work)
16. How far is Wei-Lynn from the finish line at 15 seconds?
17. How far is Vijay from the finish line at 6 seconds?
18. This race takes places on a football field. Draw a picture if viewed from above. (include all details).
65
66
67