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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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