Professional Learning Community
4 critical questions
1. What is it we expect students to learn?
2. How will we know when they have learned it?
3. How will we respond when they don’t learn?
4. How will we respond when they already know it?
AJC Physics PLC
How can we address learning
difficulties in Newton’s 1st and 3rd laws
through Physics by Inquiry (PbI) using
ICT?
Aim
Investigate whether students from the
experimental group who have undergone the
PbI lesson will understand N1L & N3L better
than their peers in the control group who
went through conventional physics
instruction.
Contents
• Introduction & Literature Review
• Methodology
• Worksheet & Java Simulation
• Results & Discussion
• Conclusion
Introduction
1. Commonsense beliefs about motion and
force are incompatible with Newtonian
concepts in most respects
1. Conventional physics instruction
produces little change in these beliefs, and
1. This result is independent of the instructor
and the mode of instruction.
-Halloun & Hestenes 1985
Introduction
• confirmed that AJC H2 Physics students had
similar commonsense beliefs
• adopted the 4MAT approach to challenge
the conventional physics instruction
• aim to bridge the gap between
commonsense beliefs about motion and
force and Newtonian concepts
- Chia K. B. et al.
Problem Identified
Based on Force Concept Inventory (FCI) post
test scores gathered by Chia K. B. et. al,
many students still had misconceptions with
Newton’s First Law (N1L) and Newton’s Third
Law (N3L).
Literature Review
- PbI Approach - Professor Lillian C. McDermott and the Physics Education
Group, University of Washington
- Java Simulation -Jackson et al., 1996
Methodology
Control Group
used Conventional physics instruction method
Experimental Group
adopted the PbI approach using the Java
simulation and relevant worksheets.
Lesson in Progress for an
Experimental Class
picture of classroom
How the Groups were formed?
Experimental Group (EG) Control Group (CG)
Classes under YKW
20/12 12/12
Classes under AG 06/12
22/12
Classes under JT
05/12
21/12
Group Size
75 students
(15% of H2 Phy cohort)
73 students
(15% of H2 Phy
cohort)
Mean Subject Grade (MSG) 2.00
2.00
Methodology - Pre test & Post test
• selected 15 MCQs from the Force Concept
Inventory (FCI)
o 7 Qs on N1L, 4 Qs on N3L and 4 others
• administered to both groups before and
after the topic on Dynamics was taught.
Methodology - FGD
Focus Group Discussion with ETD and NIE
staff
• 3 students from each experimental class
• Selected based on their varied
receptiveness to the lesson.
• Provide a dipstick of the lesson.
• They were asked to comment on their
learning experience and provide feedback on
the lesson.
Worksheet & Java Simulation
Handouts
Worksheet - Pg 1
Java Simulation
Java Simulation
Java Simulation
Worksheet - Pg 1
Java Simulation
Worksheet - Pg 2
Java Simulation
Worksheet - Pg 3
Worksheet - Pg 4
Java Simulation - Demonstration
Worksheet - Pg 4
Results & Analysis
Comparison of Scores for EG & CG
Percentage of students’ performance
in N1L for the EG and CG
Percentage of students’ performance
in N3L for the EG and CG
Results & Analysis - Statistical
• Pre test and post test results of the students were
compared
• The improvement of the results for the students was
investigated using the paired Z-test.
• Since our sample size was large, we could assume the
results to be normally distributed, with the test statistic
to be
Hypothesis Testing
Our null hypothesis is that students do not do
better after our intervention programme, i.e.
the results of the students is similar
regardless of whether they are in the EG or
the CG.
Our alternative hypothesis is that the EG will
improve more than the CG through our
intervention program.
Hypothesis Testing
Pre test and Post test statistics for N1L for
the EG and CG
Using the test statistic, the Z-value is 2.23 and
P ( |Z| < 2.23 ) = 97.4%
There is sufficient evidence, at the 5% level of
significance, to reject the null hypothesis that
the students do not do better after our
intervention programme.
Hypothesis Testing
Pre test and Post test statistics for N3L for
the EG and CG
Using the test statistic, the Z-value is -0.76 and
P ( |Z| < 0.76 ) = 55.2%
There is insufficient evidence, at the 5% level of
significance, to reject the null hypothesis that
the students do not do better after our
intervention programme.
Focus Group Discussion
• Gather qualitative feedback from students
• Based on students' feedback, infer the
intangible benefits of our lesson
• Recommend to other Physics tutors
strategies for teaching N1L & N3L
Focus group
discussion in
progress
Focus Group Discussion
Feedback
• Useful for visualising certain concepts
• Moderate the use of such lessons to suit
the curriculum demands. Only use for
hard-to -visualise topics
Focus Group Discussion
Feedback
• Time consuming
- time to familiarise with the user interface
of the computer simulation
- time to understand the worksheet since it
is a self-exploratory learning process
Conclusion
• Marked improvement in N1L but not in N3L
• Students felt that PbI lessons enhanced
interactivity and engagement.
• Will recommend the use of Java simulation
in hard-to-visualise topics
Q & A
