Introduction - Modeling Instruction...

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PHYSICS FIRST IN MAINE

ByMichael James O’Brien

B.S. Lyndon State College, 1990B.S. University of Maine at Farmington, 1998

A THESISSubmitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree ofMaster of Science in Teaching

The Graduate SchoolThe University of Maine

May, 2006

Advisory Committee:John R. Thompson, Assistant Professor of Physics, Cooperating Assistant

Professor of Education; AdvisorMichael C. Wittmann, Assistant Professor of Physics, Cooperating Assistant

Professor of EducationMolly Schauffler, Assistant Professor of Geological Sciences

LIBRARY RIGHTS STATEMENTIn presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an

advanced degree at The University of Maine, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for “fair use” copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Librarian. It is understood that any copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.

ABSTRACTData from three high schools that teach physics in ninth grade and three

that teach physics in twelfth grade were used to make comparisons between these classes. Research tools include written pre- and post-tests of kinematics and mechanics concepts, a written physics attitudes and expectations survey, and individual student interviews. Portions of these tools were excerpted from well-known and thoroughly tested instruments. The normalized gains on the conceptual survey were compared, and analyzed to determine which kinematics and mechanics concepts ninth- and twelfth-graders appear to learn differently. Students’ perceptions of physics from the ninth- and twelfth-grade viewpoints are also compared. Results suggest that while the populations are similar affectively, they have some significant differences in conceptual understanding, and this difference is amplified by different instructional approaches.

1

Chapter 1Introduction

Currently, in more than 99% of American high schools, physics is a twelfth-grade course (Sheppard and Robbins, 2005). In this traditional model, physics is the culminating high school science class for most students, and is rich in math, problem solving and critical thinking skills. However, there is a growing movement called “Physics First” whose supporters advocate teaching physics to ninth graders rather than twelfth graders. In this new model, physics serves as the first course in the sequence of high school science courses rather than the last. This report describes the investigation of and comparison of the experiences of a sample of ninth graders and a sample of twelfth graders, each of whom are taking physics for the first time, with the goal of learning more about the advantages and disadvantages of teaching physics at each age level. 1.1 History

In order to fully understand why the current sequence of high school courses is being challenged, it is necessary to look at the history of high school science education in America. Prior to 1892, chemistry and physics were not taught in any specific order, and general biology did not exist as a course, although courses in botany, physiology and zoology did exist. In 1892, the National Educational Association (NEA) organized the “Committee of Ten.” This was a group of scientists and college-level educators whose goal was to determine what should be taught in high school so students entering college would have a more uniform preparation (Sheppard and Robbins, 2005).

The Committee of Ten recommended that physics be taught before chemistry so all students would be exposed to physics in high school, since many high schools of the day only required one year of science. This recommendation was implemented by the NEA in 1896, and was the preferred sequence of high school science courses in the early 1900’s. However, the physics-chemistry sequence did not last for two reasons. The first reason is that between 1896 and 1920, two new high school science courses were created – general science and general biology. These courses were generally descriptive in nature, and therefore, most schools taught them in the early years of high school before the more abstract subjects of chemistry and physics (Sheppard and Robbins, 2005). The second reason that the physics-chemistry sequence did not last is that the Committee of Ten had also recommended that physics become more demanding and mathematically sophisticated (Myers, 1987). This made physics more suitable as twelfth grade course.

In 1920, the NEA commissioned the Committee on the Reorganization of Science in Secondary Schools to look at how these new courses fit into the sequence of high school science courses. The recommendation of this committee was that general biology should be taught before chemistry and physics, but no recommendation regarding the order of chemistry and physics was made. However, because physics courses had become more rich in math, problem solving and critical thinking, many schools began teaching chemistry before physics. In 1908, approximately 55% of the high schools in the United States

2

taught physics before chemistry, while approximately 35% of high schools taught physics after chemistry, and the remaining 10% did not offer separate courses in both chemistry and physics. By 1941, only 42% of the schools taught physics before chemistry, while 57% taught physics after chemistry, and only 1% did not offer separate courses in both physics and chemistry (Sheppard and Robbins, 2005).

In 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, and The American High School Today Committee was formed to recommend reforms necessary to help the United States catch up to the Soviets in the space race. In 1959, this committee recommended that physics be taught after chemistry. This recommendation was made mainly because the problem solving and critical thinking skills that were prevalent in physics courses were judged to be more appropriate for older students. The sequence of biology-chemistry-physics has been the most widely accepted sequence since that time. The most common sequence of courses, which currently exists in more than 99% of American high schools, is: 9th grade earth science or physical science, 10th grade biology, 11th grade chemistry, and 12th grade physics (Myers, 1987). 1.2 Rationale for Physics First

There is a growing movement, started by educators, called “Physics First” that advocates flipping this sequence around and teaching physics during the first year of high school rather than the last (Sund and Trowbridge, 1971; Haber-Schaim, 1984; Myers, 1987; Bardeen and Lederman, 1998). Advocates of the Physics First movement argue that the sequence should be flipped because science curricula have changed since the current “physics last” model was recommended in 1959.

Biology curricula have seen the most change since 1959. This is largely because of the important discoveries in biology that have occurred during this time. When general biology was first developed as a course in the early 1900’s, it consisted largely of botany, zoology and health topics. While the 19th century discoveries of Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel ushered in a new era of modern biology at that time, it was Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA molecules in 1953 that ushered in the current era of modern biology.

Since the work of Watson and Crick, many important discoveries have been made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics. A selection of these discoveries includes: the development of the chain termination method of DNA sequencing by Fred Sanger (Sanger et al, 1977); the development of the fluid mosaic model of cell membranes in 1972 by Singer and Nicholson (Singer, S.J., Nicholson, G.L., 1972); Chang and Cohen showing that recombinant DNA can be maintained and replicated in E. coli cells in 1973 (Chang, A.C.Y., Cohen, S.N., 1974); the founding of the first genetic engineering company, Genetech, in 1977; the discovery of human oncogenes in 1981 (Schwab et al, 1985); Kerry Mullis inventing the polymerase chain reaction procedure in 1985 that is used to replicate specific sequences of DNA (Mullis, K., 1986); the cloning of Dolly the Sheep in 1996; and the publication of the first drafts of the complete human genome in 2001. Clearly, biology has become a much more sophisticated subject since the days of Darwin and Mendel.

3

As a result, modern biology courses emphasize molecular methods, genetics and biochemistry. This is very different from the biology classes of 1959 that emphasized the classification of life forms. Chemistry courses have undergone a similar evolution because of the discoveries in atomic structure by John Dalton, Joseph John Thomson, Ernest Rutherford, Niels Bohr, and Erwin Schrödinger during the early 20th century. As a result, modern chemistry emphasizes atomic structure, atomic energy levels, and even some quantum theory. Physics first advocates argue that a good understanding of modern biology requires a chemistry background, and a good understanding of modern chemistry requires a physics background. This is the foundation of Physics First.

Beyond these changes that have occurred in the content of high school science courses, advocates for Physics First cite other advantages to teaching physics to 9th graders rather than 12th graders. (Bardeen and Lederman, 1998)

1. If 9th graders take physics at the same time they are taking Algebra I, they can see an application for the algebra they are learning. This will help them learn algebra.

2. Most high schools only require 2-3 years of science, so currently only about 35% of high school students take physics, and approximately 25% of high school students take both chemistry and physics. Teaching physics in the 9th grade will ensure that more students take physics in high school.

3. Currently, if top students wish to take an advanced or elective science courses, they need to “double up” (take two science courses simultaneously) to do so. In the physics first model, earth science is integrated into the other classes (physics, chemistry, biology). This allows students to take advanced or elective science courses, during 12th grade without having to “double up.”

4. Ninth-grade physics emphasizes the basics of science (forces, motion, energy, experimental design, and data analysis). This is a better foundation of science skills than earth science.

5. In the current sequence, there is little integration of topics between biology, chemistry and physics. This is because very little of what is covered in chemistry requires a biology background, and very little of what is covered in physics requires either a biology or chemistry background.

1.3 Resistance to Physics FirstIn 1959, the American High School Today Committee recommended that

physics be taught to 12th graders because of the abstract thinking, problem solving and math skills that are a prerequisite for 12th grade physics courses. Some educators are worried that if this course is moved to 9th grade, those students either won’t have the skills necessary to be successful, or the course will have to be so watered down that it will no longer teach the necessary basics of physics. Furthermore, some educators also argue that there may be more appropriate ways to ensure that a majority of high school students will have some experience in the basic concepts of physics and chemistry. One method is teaching an integrated science curriculum. In this model, students are exposed to biology, chemistry,

4

earth science and physics every year that they take science, and the different sciences are not treated as separate and unrelated topics. This approach addresses the criticism of the traditional sequence made by Physics First advocates that the traditional sequence of high school science courses does not integrate the subjects well.

Another method is to teach physical science to ninth graders. Although there is no exact curriculum that describes physical science, a typical physical science course covers at least the basic concepts of physics (i.e. Newton’s Laws, conservation of energy) and chemistry (i.e. atomic structure, density, states of matter). Generally, physical science courses are less mathematically rigorous than a typical physics or chemistry class. Students who take physical science in the ninth grade will have some background in physics and chemistry when they enter the tenth grade biology classroom. 1.4 The Maine Learning Results and Physical Science vs. Physics

The Maine Learning Results is a document that describes the skills each high school student in Maine needs to acquire in order to meet graduation requirements. There are thirteen categories of skills in science. These categories are: Classifying Life Forms, Ecology, Cells, Continuity and Change, Structure of Matter, The Earth, The Universe, Energy, Motion, Inquiry and Problem Solving, Scientific Reasoning, Communication, and Implications of Science and Technology. Each of these categories includes several skills that students must acquire to prove that they have met the requirements for that given category (State of Maine Learning Results, 1997, http://www.maine.gov/education/lres/homepage.htm). The skills that are described in the Maine Learning Results dictate the topics that are covered in the high school curriculum. Because of the large number of skills and the complexity of some of these skills, developing a curriculum that allows all students to meet all the requirements is a challenge for the high schools in Maine.

Many high schools currently require their student to pass only two years of science for graduation. This means that some students in these schools take science only in the ninth and tenth grades. Therefore, they must meet all the requirements of the Maine Learning Results in their ninth and tenth grade science classes. This is usually done by teaching physical science to ninth graders and biology to tenth graders.

Any school that wishes to implement a Physics First curriculum must require at least three years of science in order for students to make it to the third course in this physics-chemistry-biology sequence. While increasing the science requirement from two to three years is beneficial because it will increase enrollment in the sciences, it may also require extra expenditures for the school district to pay for more teachers, books, and supplies to meet the demands of this increased enrollment. This increased enrollment in the sciences can also create more demands on science classroom and lab space, and in fact, the school may not have enough space to meet these demands.1.5 The Transition Years

So that all students continue to have the opportunity to take the full range of science courses, any school that makes the decision to change the sequence of

5

http://www.maine.gov/education/lres/homepage.htm

science courses it offers must go through at least a three-year transition period. If the school switches from an earth science-biology-chemistry-physics sequence to a physics-chemistry-biology sequence, there are several adjustments that must be made during this transition. During the first year of this transition, all ninth graders will be enrolled in physics as they are the first students to make the transition. The rest of the students will still follow the old sequence. This means all tenth graders will be enrolled in biology, eleventh graders will typically enroll in chemistry, and twelfth graders will typically enroll in physics. During this year, the number of students taking physics will be more than double the typical enrollment levels since students from both the ninth and twelfth grades will be taking physics simultaneously. This requires a shuffling of teaching assignments, and may mean that some teachers (particularly the teachers that taught earth science in the old sequence) are teaching outside their area of expertise.

During the second year, this transition becomes even more challenging for the school. During this year, the ninth graders and the tenth graders will follow the new sequence while the eleventh and twelfth graders are following the old sequence. This means that all ninth graders are enrolled in physics, all tenth graders are enrolled in chemistry, eleventh graders typically enroll in chemistry, and twelfth graders typically enroll in physics. During the second year of the transition, not only will physics enrollments be more than double their normal levels, chemistry enrollments will also more than double during this year since both tenth and eleventh graders are taking chemistry simultaneously. This means that more teachers (particularly the earth science and biology teachers) may be teaching outside their areas of expertise. This large number of students taking chemistry at the same time can also add to the challenge by putting extra demands on the need for chemistry lab space.

One way to deal with this incredible challenge is to stagger the transition such that some of the tenth graders who took physics as ninth graders take biology instead of the preferred tenth-grade course of chemistry. Those students will actually follow a physics-biology-chemistry sequence. While this sequence is not the preferred physics-chemistry-biology sequence, it may need to be done this way during this second transition year with some students in order to make the transition possible. (No reports of this sequence have been published.)

The third year of the transition will be much like the first year. Ninth and twelfth graders are enrolled in physics simultaneously. Tenth graders are enrolled in chemistry. Eleventh graders are enrolled in biology. If the school elects to stagger the transition during the second year, some eleventh graders will be taking chemistry during this year. Once the school makes it through this transition period of three years, it can begin to offer more electives to its twelfth graders who have finished the physics-chemistry-biology sequence.

6

1.6 Development of Research QuestionsIn order to gain insight into the experiences of 9th graders taking physics

and 12th graders taking physics for the first time, the following questions are posed:1. Is there a difference in the performance of 9th graders and 12th graders on a survey of kinematics and mechanics concepts?2. How do the attitudes toward and expectations of physics of 9th graders and 12th graders differ?

The students surveyed in this project come from several different high schools in the state of Maine, and each school may have one or more teachers teaching physics. For this reason, some of the students participating in this study will have different experiences in physics. Some of these differences can be caused by, and are not limited to: variations in weekly physics class time due to the different schedules of different schools; differences in curricula between schools and teachers; variations in class size between schools, and within schools; variations in the styles of different teachers; and variations in the amount of technology available at different schools.

The intended study population is typical high school students in the state of Maine. Seven high schools in Maine have participated in this study. Three of the schools teach physics to ninth graders, and three teach physics to twelfth graders. One of the participating schools teaches physics to ninth graders and also has a course for twelfth graders who did not take physics in an earlier grade. The participating schools are schools that responded to a request sent out on the Maine Science Listserv, and volunteered to participate. The participating schools, teachers, and students received no compensation for their participation.1.7 Context for Research

Twelfth-grade physics students from four different schools and four different teachers, and ninth-grade physics students from three different schools and six different teachers participated in this project. Each of the teachers was asked to fill out a survey (Appendix A) in which they report the amount of time spent on specific topics and the different teaching styles they regularly use in their physics classroom. This was done in order to get a sense of the differences that exist between the curricula and teaching styles of the different schools and teachers. The results of these surveys are summarized below.1.7.1 Self-Reported Time Spent on Specific Topics

In general, the teachers from school #2 reported spending more time on these topics than the teachers from other schools. This is mainly because these teachers used a method of instruction called “Modeling.” Modeling requires more time because it is a student-centered approach which involves the students performing experiments, collecting data, graphing the data, and creating mathematical models to develop the rules and equations that will be used in that class. This process takes longer than the traditional approach of the teacher lecturing to the students about the rules and laws that they will be using. The only school to not use modeling and spend more than a total of eleven weeks on these topics is school #4.

7

School TeacherGraphing

Skills(weeks)

Kine-matics(weeks)

Newton’s Laws

(weeks)

Total (weeks)

Number of

Students1 1 0.5 3 6 9.5 832 2 4 8 8 20 182 3 4 8 8 20 11

Table 1: Instructional time breakdown for ninth-grade college preparatory level classes


Skills (weeks)

Kinematics (weeks)

Newton’s Laws

(weeks)

Total (weeks)

Number of

Students2 2 2 8 8 18 132 4 1 8 8 17 633 5 2 3 6 11 28

Table 2: Instructional time breakdown for ninth-grade honors level classes


Skills (weeks)

Kinematics (weeks)

Newton’s Laws

(weeks)

Total (weeks)

Number of

Students3 5 2 2 6 10 94 6 2 8 6 16 545 7 1 3 3 7 26 8 1 3 6 10 40

Table 3: Instructional time breakdown for twelfth-grade college preparatory level classes

1.7.2 Self-Reported Time Spent Using Specific Teaching MethodsThe teachers that use Modeling as a method of instruction generally do not

report spending any time lecturing. This is because Modeling emphasizes a “student-centered” approach rather than a “teacher-centered” approach. For the rest of the teachers, their self-reported percentage of time spent lecturing varies from 14-50%. For all schools the percentage of time on labs, small-group work, and inquiry varies from 13-38%, 13-33%, and 0-33% respectively.

8

School Teacher

Lecture (% of total class time)

Lab (% of total class time)

Small Group Work(% of total class time)

Inquiry(% of total class time)

Modeling(% of total class time)

Total Class Time

(hours per

week)

1 1 29 29 14 29 0 3.52 2 0 (33) (33) (33) 100 32 3 0 (33) (33) (33) 100 3Table 4: Instructional methods for ninth-grade college preparatory level

classesThe values that appear in parentheses represent components of the modeling method of instruction.

School Teacher

Lec-ture

(% of total class time)



In-quiry(% of total class time)

Modeling(% of

total class time)

Total Class Time

(hours per

week)

2 2 0 (33) (33) (33) 100 32 4 33 (33) (16) (16) 67 33 5 38 38 13 13 0 4

Table 5: Instructional methods for ninth-grade honors level classesThe values that appear in parentheses represent components of the modeling method of instruction.

School Teacher

Lecture (% of total class time)



In-quiry(% of total class time)

Modeling(% of

total class time)

Total Class Time

(hours per

week)

3 5 50 25 13 13 0 44 6 50 25 25 0 0 45 7 50 13 25 13 0 46 8 14 14 29 14 0 3.5

Table 6: Instructional methods for twelfth-grade college preparatory level classes

9

Chapter 2Literature Review

2.1 Previous Research into the Effectiveness of Physics FirstIn order for the Physics First movement to gain credibility in both the

physics and education communities, it needs to be able to cite quantitative data that support its claims that teaching physics to 9th graders can be successful. While many educators have reported success in teaching physics first, these reports have been mostly anecdotal and lacking quantitative data. However, there have been several small-scale studies of the effectiveness of teaching physics to underclassmen (9th and 10th graders) that have been published since the Physics First movement’s infancy in the late 1960’s. 2.1.1 Rome Public High School, NY: In 1966, Joseph Palombi, chair of the science department at Rome Public High School, NY was considering switching physics from a 12th grade course to a 10th grade course, because “when students take biology during the sophomore year, it often becomes the last science course attempted because the concepts are so sophisticated and complex, and the students become discouraged.” (Palombi, 1971)

In order to determine if physics was suitable for the high school sophomore, Rome Public High School taught one section of physics to 10th graders during the 1966-67 school year. The 10th grade students that were asked to participate in this course were those that achieved scores of 80% or higher on the 1966 New York Regents Exam in algebra. In the June 1967, both the sophomores from this physics course, and the seniors from the typical physics classes took the New York State Regents physics exam. The 10th graders’ average score was 81%, and the 12th graders average score 82%. Palombi saw this as an indication that 10th graders could be successful in physics. However, these results are limited because not all the 10th graders were enrolled in physics courses, and only those that performed above a certain level on the Regents algebra exam the previous year were part of the study. (Palombi, 1971)2.1.2 Illinois State Physics Project: A separate study was conducted in the late 1960’s by the Illinois State Physics Project to determine if the high school sophomore could be successful in physics, because “biology itself has continued to become a more sophisticated subject, demanding a prerequisite knowledge of physics and chemistry.” (Hamilton, 1970) In this study, a group of 18 high school physics teachers was each assigned a volunteer student who had just completed ninth grade. During the summer of 1969, which was the summer between 9th grade and 10th grade for the volunteer students, each teacher each worked one-on-one with a student in order to teach the concepts of physics. Each week, the teacher would present a different activity to his/her student using the “phenomenological approach,” which Hamilton defines as “placing emphasis on the observation and investigation of physics phenomena that can be readily explored by the student…without requiring a great deal of mathematical sophistication.” The results of this study were qualitative.

Hamilton lists two conclusions about the sophomore student: “the sophomore student had little difficulty mastering the concepts presented,” and “the sophomore student was highly motivated by the phenomenological

10

approach.” (Hamilton, 1970) While this project was successful, and supports the hypothesis that the 10th graders are capable of learning physics, the conditions of this project are so different from a typical high school classroom that it provides limited conclusive evidence regarding the appropriateness of teaching physics to all students at the 10th grade level. 2.1.3 Project ARISE: Project ARISE (American Renaissance in Science Education) was founded in September, 1995, with the goal of developing a new framework of science education. One of the key components of that framework is reversing the order of the typical high school science sequence so that physics is taught first, followed by chemistry and biology. Dr. Leon Lederman, recipient of a Nobel Prize in physics in 1988, is the most well known participant of this project.

In 2001, Pasero released the results of a study that he conducted titled, “The State of Physics First Programs.” Only schools that teach physics first participated in this study, which consisted of interviews with thirteen teachers, and two case studies. Pasero found that the schools in this study were “generally enthusiastic about their curricula.” He also found that none of the schools were collecting quantitative data on the success of the physics first program in their schools. Pasero concludes, “Finding that schools are satisfied with their change in curriculum is nice, but it can hardly be considered a solid research base. Quantitative data is needed for further study of the effectiveness of the physics-first programs.” (Pasero, 2001)2.1.4 Germantown Friends School, PA: Another study was done by Howard Glasser, a physics teacher at Germantown Friends School, a private school in Philadelphia. This school switched to a physics first sequence in 1999. Glasser looked at the effect of this switch on students’ scores on the math section of the math section of the PSAT by comparing the scores of the students who took the PSAT exam before the school switched to physics first to the scores of students who took the PSAT exam after the switch. He looked at students who took the PSAT exam for the three years prior to the school switching to physics first, and those students who took the PSAT exam for the three years immediately after the switch (table 7).

Glasser (Glasser, 2004) found that the students who took physics as freshmen performed significantly better on the math section of the PSAT than those who did not (table 8). This is true even though there were no significant differences in the performance of the six classes on the Quantitative Ability sub-test of the Comprehensive Testing Program III (CTP III) taken in the eighth grade. This standardized test is published and distributed by the Educational Records Bureau and is composed of eight sections that assess performance in verbal and quantitative areas (Glasser, 2004).

11

The p-values in table 8 indicate the level of confidence in which we can report the differences in the means that are being compared are due to random effects and not measurable effects. p-values lower than 0.05 indicate that the level of confidence that the differences in the means are due to random effects is lower than 5%. These p-values are considered significant because they indicate that the level of confidence that the differences in the means are caused by measurable effects and not random effects is greater than 95%.

Year of Graduation

2000-2002 2003 2004 2005

Mean PSAT Mathematics’

Percentile67.3 71.6 75.3 75.7

Sample size (n) 154 66 68 65

Table 7: PSAT performance of pre-inversion classes (2000-2002), and each post-inversion class (2003-2005) (Glasser, 2004)

Year of Graduation 2003 2004 2005

p-value 0.0935 0.0035 0.0036Table 8: p-values for comparison of post-inversion PSAT

scores for each class with pre-inversion scores (Glasser, 2004)

2.1.5 Unnamed High School in Maine, 2003-2005: This high school in Maine switched to physics first at the beginning of the 2002-2003 school year. Each year, each student enrolled in physics takes the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) (Hestenes et al, 1992) as both a pretest and post-test. These data were collected by the teachers of the school for their own assessment and research purposes, and not for public information. Because the teachers did not seek parental permission for these data to be published outside of the school, the school cannot be named. Each grade consists of approximately 150 students with approximately 60% of the students taking honors level physics, and 40% taking college preparatory (CP) level physics. Because this high school was in transition from a traditional sequence to a physics-first sequence during these years, it is possible to compare the results of 9th graders taking physics to 12th graders taking physics for the first time within the same school. The tests were analyzed by finding the mean normalized gains of each academic level (honors vs. college preparatory) for each grade. The normalized gain is determined by dividing the difference of the post-test and pretest scores by the difference of a perfect score and the pretest score. Normalized Gain <g> = (post-pre) / (perfect-pre). These normalized gains are summarized in table 9.

12

At this school, the honors level 9th graders outperformed each of the other sub-groups in the school. This is a strong indication that students in this population can be very successful in physics. It should be noted that these students were taught using the modeling method of instruction, while the rest of the school was taught using more traditional methods. Therefore, these data are also an indication of the efficacy of modeling over traditional methods.

The college preparatory students at each grade level achieved approximately the same normalized gains. This is another indication that 9th graders can be equally successful in understanding Newtonian physics concepts as 12th graders. These data, and their relevance to this study will be discussed in more detail in the Results and Discussion section.

Sub-group College Preparatory Honors

9th grade 24% 52%12th grade 25% 40%

Table 9: Normalized gains on Force Concept Inventory for Maine high school switching to Physics First

2.2 Previous Results of Widely Used Conceptual DiagnosticsSince the early 1990’s, several different diagnostics have been developed

and used to assess student learning in introductory physics courses at both the college and high school level. Three of these diagnostics were used to develop the diagnostic used in this study – the Test of Understanding of Graphs in Kinematics, the Force Concept Inventory and the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation. 2.2.1 The Test of Understanding Graphs in Kinematics

The Test for Understanding Graphs in Kinematics (TUG-K) was developed by Robert Beichner of North Carolina State University in order to assess seven different areas of students’ understanding of kinematics graphs (Beichner, 1994). These seven objectives are summarized in Table 10. The third column displays the percent of correct answers for each objective when the test was administered to 524 college and high school students in introductory physics courses after instruction in kinematics. The high school students in this study were seniors and juniors. No ninth-grade physics students participated in this study. (Beichner, 1994)

13

Given: The student will:

Percent Correct

Position-Time Graph

Determine Velocity 51

Velocity-Time Graph

Determine Acceleration 40

Velocity-Time Graph

Determine Displacement 49

Acceleration-Time Graph

Determine Change in Velocity

23

Kinematics Graph

Select Another

Corresponding Graph

38

Kinematics Graph

Select Textual Description 39

Textual Motion

Description

Select Corresponding

Graph43

Table 10: Objectives of the TUG-K, and data from university and twelfth-grade students. (Beichner, 1994)

The overall mean score on the test was 40%. Beichner lists six difficulties that the students encountered (Beichner, 1994):“Graph as Picture” Errors

The student sees the graph as a photograph of the motion rather than an abstract mathematical representation of the event.

Slope/Height ConfusionStudents read values directly off the y-axis when they should find the slope of the line.

Variable ConfusionStudents do not distinguish between position, velocity, and acceleration. They believe that graphs of these variables should be identical.

Non-origin Slope ErrorsStudents successfully find the slope of lines that pass through the origin, but have difficulty if the line does not go through the origin.

Area IgnoranceStudents do not recognize the meaning of the area under a kinematics graph.

14

Area/Slope/Height ConfusionStudents often perform slope calculations or read values off the y-axis when area calculations are required.

2.2.2 The Force Concept InventoryThe Force Concept Inventory (FCI) was developed by Arizona State

University physics professors Ibrahim Halloun and David Hestenes, and high school physics teachers Malcolm Wells and Gregg Swackhamer (Hestenes et al., 1992). The FCI was developed as an assessment tool that can be used to determine how well students understand the Newtonian concept of force. It is a 29-question multiple-choice survey whose distracters represent common misconceptions of force. It has been administered to tens of thousands of introductory physics students at the high school and college level. The FCI data can be analyzed two different ways. The first method is to look at the total percentage of correct answers on the post-test. Post-test scores greater than 60% are accepted as the entry threshold to Newtonian thinking, and post-test scores greater than 85% are accepted as the mastery level of Newtonian thinking (Hestenes and Halloun, 1995). The second method is to determine the average normalized gain, <g>, for a group of students (Hake, 1998). This is useful to determine the percentage of the maximum possible gain that has been achieved.

Hestenes, Wells, and Swackhamer administered the FCI to hundreds of high school and college students in Arizona. The data summarized in Table 11 are from those students that were enrolled in classes that used “traditional” methods of teaching. The high school classes were typically 12th-grade classes. No data were collected from 9th-grade physics classes as part of this study. Hestenes, Wells and Swackhamer did not report the normalized gains for these students, but they have been calculated here from the pre- and post-test scores. <g> = (post%-pre%) / (100%-pre%).

ClassPretest Score (%)

Post-test Score (%)

<g> (%) N

High School Non-

Honors

27 48 29 612

High School Honors

33 56 34 118

High School

AP41 57 27 33

University 52 63 23 139Table 11: FCI Results Using Traditional Teaching Methods

(Hestenes et al., 1992)

15

Hestenes, Wells, and Swackhamer also collected data from the classes taught by Wells and Swackhamer. Their teaching methods were more innovative, i.e. more interactive and student-centered. These data are summarized in Table 12. Hestenes, Wells and Swackhamer do not report testing these data for statistical significance, and the sample sizes for the innovative classes may be too small to show any statistical significance. However, there seems to be a correlation between the teaching method and the normalized gains. The normalized gains are in the 20-35% range for the students that received more traditional instruction, and in the 40-60% range for students that were involved in more innovative methods of instruction (as defined by Hestenes, Wells, and Swackhamer).

ClassPretest Score (%)

Post-test Score (%)

<g> (%) N

Wells Non-Honors 28 64 50 18

Wells Honors 42 78 62 30

Swackhamer AP 73 85 44 11

Wells University 36 68 50 44

Table 12: FCI Results Innovative Teaching Methods (Hestenes et al, 1992)

A separate larger study that offers more evidence for a correlation between teaching method and performance on the FCI was done by done by Richard Hake of Indiana University and was published in the American Journal of Physics in 1998 (Hake, 1998). Hake analyzed FCI data from 6542 students enrolled in sixty-two different introductory physics classes both at the college and twelfth-grade level, and it is in this study that Hake defined normalized gain and found it to be a measure of merit. The FCI was not administered to any 9th graders as part of this study. According to these data, the average normalized gains were in the 20-30% range for 12th graders taught by traditional methods, and in the 50-70% range for 12th graders taught by “interactive engagement” methods. The data from college and university were very similar to the high school data. The average normalized gains for college and university students were in the 10-30% range for traditional classes, and in the 30-70% range for interactive engagement classes (Hake, 1998).

16

Hake defines interactive engagement (IE) methods as, “those designed at least in part to promote conceptual understanding through interactive engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities which yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors” (Hake, 1998). This definition is similar to the definition Hestenes, Wells, and Swackhamer use for innovative methods. Hake defines traditional courses as “those that make little or no use of IE methods, relying primarily on passive-student lectures, recipe labs, and algorithmic-problem exams” (Hake, 1998).2.2.3 The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation

The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE) was developed by Ronald Thornton of Tufts University, and David Sokoloff of the University of Oregon (Thornton and Sokoloff, 1998). The FMCE is another research-based diagnostic used to evaluate students’ understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Like the TUG-K and the FCI, it a multiple-choice test whose distracters are appealing because they represent common student preconceptions of motion. The data from the administration of the FMCE to hundreds of college students enrolled in introductory physics is similar to the data collected from the TUG-K and the FCI. Students typically answer 10-20% of the questions correctly before instruction, and how well they do after instruction depends highly on the method of instruction. The post-test scores of students enrolled in traditional instruction classes do not improve nearly as much as those of students enrolled in “active learning” classes (Thornton and Sokoloff, 1998).

A unique feature of the FMCE is the clustering of subsets of questions that deal with specific topics. For example, one cluster of seven questions asks about the force required to cause specific motions of a sled on a frictionless surface. Another cluster of three questions asks about the force acting on a coin that has been tossed straight up. The questions ask about the force on the coin on its way up, its way down, and at the apex of its trajectory. Typically, student answers to questions within clusters follow a predictable pattern given their level conceptual understanding of Newtonian motion. The patterns of student answers to subsets of questions can be analyzed to determine their level of conceptual understanding of Newtonian motion (Thornton and Sokoloff, 1998).

2.3 The Maryland Physics Expectations SurveyThe Maryland Physics Expectations (MPEX) Survey was developed at the

University of Maryland (Redish et al., 1998). It is a 34-item survey that probes students’ attitudes and beliefs about physics courses. The survey contains statements about physics and the learning of physics in which the students are asked to respond to the statements using a Likert scale (agree-disagree). The purpose of the survey is to probe students’ understanding of the “process of learning physics” (Redish et al., 1998). The MPEX probes student beliefs in three main categories: independence, coherence, and concepts. The independence questions probe whether the students see learning physics as receiving information or as an active process of reconstructing one’s own understanding. The coherence questions probe students’ views of physics either as a collection of unrelated facts or as a single coherent system of describing the physical world.

17

The concepts questions probe the relative importance students place on the formulas and the concepts that support the formulas.

The responses to the statements are categorized as favorable if they agree with the expert view, and unfavorable if they do not. The survey data are analyzed by determining the ratio of favorable to unfavorable responses for each of the three main categories of independence, coherence, and concepts. The survey was administered to more than 1500 students enrolled in introductory calculus-based physics courses at six different colleges and universities in the mid 1990’s at the beginning of the semester and again at the end of the semester. When taken at the end of the semester, the average overall percentage of favorable responses for each institution falls in the 45-60% range, the average overall percentage of unfavorable responses falls in the 20-30% range, and the overall percentage of neutral responses falls in the 20-30% range as well (Redish et al., 1998). For the coherence cluster, the average overall percentages of favorable, unfavorable, and neutral responses are in the 45-65%, 20-30%, and 15-30% ranges respectively. For the concepts cluster, the average overall percentages of favorable, unfavorable, and neutral responses are in the 35-60%, 25-40%, and 20-30% ranges respectively (Redish et al., 1998). 2.4 Relevance to this study

Excerpts of each of these four surveys will be used to evaluate the students’ understanding of mechanics concepts, and their attitudes and expectations toward physics. Because each of these surveys has been widely used in these previous studies, the data that have been collected in these studies can be used as a standard. The reliability of the data collected in this study will be evaluated through comparison to this standard. However, it needs to be kept in mind that most of the data has been collected in previous studies involves university students and high school seniors. There are very few empirical data available involving 9th graders.

18

Chapter 3Methods and Instruments

Two important components of successful instruction are investigated in this study – student understanding of mechanics concepts, and student attitudes and expectations toward physics. Three different instruments were used to assess student understanding and student attitudes and expectations: a “mechanics concepts” survey, an “attitudes and expectations” survey, and a set of interview questions. Because Physics First is a relatively new paradigm, and one that has not been tested empirically, there are no instruments designed specifically to assess 9th graders. For this reason, excerpts from commercially available instruments were used to create instruments judged to be appropriate for assessing 9th graders. 3.1 Mechanics Concepts Survey

A 27-question multiple-choice survey of mechanics concepts (Appendix B) was developed by excerpting and collating questions from the TUG-K, FCI, and FMCE. This mechanics concepts survey was given to students as a pretest during September, 2005, and as a post-test sometime after instruction in mechanics was completed. Depending on the duration of the mechanics instruction of the different classes, the post-test was administered sometime between December, 2005 and March, 2006.

The TUG-K, FCI, and FMCE are each valid and reliable diagnostics that have been widely used to assess student understanding of introductory physics concepts. Each of these diagnostics was designed for assessment of college-level students enrolled in introductory physics courses. Since each diagnostic contains some questions that are too advanced for the typical ninth-grade student, it was necessary to pick questions from each diagnostic that were judged to be appropriate for ninth-grade students. The end result is a diagnostic that covers the topics of kinematics graphs and Newton’s Laws, and is understandable to the average ninth-grade student. This is important to limit the amount of frustration that the ninth graders will experience and maximize their participation level.

The TUG-K consists of 21 questions that assess students’ understanding of kinematics graphs. The basic kinematics concepts that are assessed are those that involve interpreting position vs. time, velocity vs. time, and acceleration vs. time graphs by either determining the slope of the graphs or finding the area under the curve. Many of the graphs consist of multi-stage curves, i.e. the slope of the curve is different for different time intervals. Because this can be confusing to younger students, questions that contain graphs with either a constant slope or only two different stages were chosen. These simpler graphs were judged to be best at assessing students’ understanding of the meaning of slope. Students who understand slope may not answer the more complicated graph questions correctly because they get confused processing all the different bits of information that exist in the multiple-stage graphs.

The FCI consists of 29 questions that assess student understanding of Newtonian force concepts. Each multiple-choice question consists of five choices. Each of the choices represents a different way that students with specific

19

misconceptions would answer the questions. Often times these different misconceptions are only slightly different from one another. Because many of the choices represent specific misconceptions, they may contain fairly long explanations of the reasoning behind the misconceptions. Therefore, the students must read these choices carefully. Because this high level of analytical reading may be overwhelming for the typical ninth grader, the questions that were chosen from the FCI are generally those that do not demand the highest level of analytical reading skills.

The FMCE consists of 47 questions that assess student understanding of Newtonian force concepts, kinematics graphs, and the Law of Conservation of Energy. None of the questions that assess student understanding of kinematics graphs were chosen from the FMCE because these were judged to be more complex than the graphs that were chosen from the TUG-K. None of the questions that assess student understanding of the Law of Conservation of Energy were chosen since that is not one of the goals of this project. Only questions that assess student understanding of Newtonian force concepts were chosen from the FMCE.

Many of these questions require the same analytical reading skills as the FCI, but subsets of the FMCE questions are arranged in clusters. This clustering of questions allows students to focus on one topic while answering several successive questions about that topic. This makes it easier for students to focus because there are fewer transitions from topic to topic as the students move from question to question. This clustering of questions also allows for assessment of any patterns of thinking that students may follow when thinking about slightly different aspects of specific topics.

The mechanics concepts survey that was used a pre- and post-test consists of six questions from the TUG-K, five questions from the FCI, fifteen questions from the FMCE, and one that was created by the investigator. These questions assess five different topics: kinematics graphs, free-fall, and each of Newton’s three laws. In addition, there are two subsets of questions that are used to assess whether students have the “impetus” misconception that is common among introductory students (Clement, 1985). Students with the impetus misconception believe that a force is required to keep an object in motion, and this force can exist even when the object is not in contact with the agent supplying the force. For example, the correct Newtonian view is that a sled on a frictionless surface that is given a short push will continue to move at a constant velocity after the push until acted upon by an another outside force. The impetus view is that the sled will slow down and stop after the push because the applied force diminishes with time, and in order for the sled to move at a constant velocity, there must be a constant force applied to the sled.

This survey was administered to students as a pretest at the beginning of their physics courses in September, 2005. It was also administered as a post-test some time after the students received instruction in kinematics and mechanics. In order to evaluate student learning, the normalized gains, <g>, of each student

20

were calculated. The normalized gain is the absolute gain divided by the maximum possible gain: <g> = (post-test score – pretest score) / (perfect score – pretest score). 3.2 Attitudes and Expectations Survey

A 14-question survey of student attitudes and expectations (Appendix C) was created by using questions from the 34-question MPEX survey. This survey was administered once at the same time as the post-test of mechanics concepts. The MPEX survey was written for evaluation of the attitudes and expectations of (university) students in introductory physics courses. For this reason, some of the questions may not be applicable to the ninth graders’ experiences in their physics courses, and some of the questions may be written at a level above the typical ninth grader’s reading level.

In order to adapt the MPEX survey to the needs of this project, it was necessary to eliminate these questions, and make the survey shorter so it is more appropriate for ninth graders. From the fourteen questions that were chosen, seven belong to the coherence subgroup, five belong to the concepts subgroup, and two belong to the independence subgroup. Like the MPEX survey, each of the fourteen questions used in this study consist of statements about how physics is best taught and learned. The students are asked to choose their degree of agreement/disagreement with each statement using a five-point Likert scale. This scale consists of “Strongly Disagree,” “Disagree,” “Neutral,” “Agree,” and “Strongly Agree.”

This survey is used to evaluate students’ attitudes and expectations toward their physics courses by determining the percentages of students that answer each question favorably, unfavorably and neutrally. A favorable response is one that is the same as an expert would answer. Redish et al. define an expert as “experienced physics instructors who have a high concern for educational issues and a high sensitivity to students” (Redish et al., 1998). A favorable response on the MPEX results from agreeing with the statement when an expert would agree, and disagreeing when an expert would disagree. An unfavorable response results from disagreeing when an expert would agree, or agreeing when an expert would disagree. 3.3 Interview Questions

The purpose of the interviews (interview protocols are in Appendix D) was to probe more deeply into the thoughts of some students than could be done with multiple-choice surveys. The interviews were conducted at some point during mechanics instruction. This varied slightly depending on the pace of instruction at different schools, and the timing of the interviews. The interviews were mostly conducted during students’ study hall times with those students who volunteered to participate. In order to maximize the participation of students, the interviews were designed to be approximately five minutes long. There are two reasons that shorter interviews were thought to maximize participation: students would be more wiling to give up a small amount of their study hall time than a large amount of time, and more interviews can be done in a study hall period when the interviews are shorter.

21

Some of the interview questions focused on affective aspects of the students’ experiences in physics, i.e., student enjoyment of their physics course, and students’ perception of the difficulty of their physics course. The other interview questions focused on whether students held the impetus misconception by asking about student understanding of two different situations – a ball thrown straight up into the air, and a sled on a frictionless surface. In order to keep the interviews to their prescribed length, not every question was asked to every interviewee. This practice allowed more students to be interviewed, but resulted in some questions being asked more often than others. 3.4 Analysis of Surveys and Interview Questions

Students used bubble sheets to answer each of the multiple-choice questions of the pretest and post-test versions of the mechanics concepts survey. Student names were removed from the answer sheets, and replaced by their assigned identification codes. The answer sheets were scored at the University of Maine’s computer testing center. Responses to each question, and the raw score for each student were recorded into an Excel spreadsheet. The normalized gains for each student that completed both a pre- and post-test were calculated. Only matched were used in the final analysis of normalized gains.

A separate answer sheet was not used for the attitudes and expectations survey. The spaces for students to circle their responses were on the survey itself. The student responses were transferred to and recorded in an Excel spreadsheet, and the percentages of favorable, unfavorable, and neutral responses were calculated and recorded in the Excel spreadsheet. Student names were removed from these surveys and replaced with their assigned identification codes.

Some students were interviewed during study hall times, and some were interviewed during physics class time. This was determined by the different agreements that were reached with the different physics teachers who volunteered to participate in this study. Each interview was conducted in a private office space within the school. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and identified only by the students’ assigned identification codes on the transcription. In order to evaluate and compare how the different populations answered the different interview questions, all the answers to each question were categorized into groups of like answers. The percentages of each group of like answers for each question were recorded in an Excel spreadsheet.

22

Chapter 4Results and Discussion

4.1 Pretest Results and DiscussionOn the pretest, both the 9th and 12th graders did only slightly better than

random guessing. This indicates the students from both grade levels had very little background in physics at the beginning of their physics courses. While random guessing would result in answering 4.4 questions out of 27 correctly (16%), the ninth graders answered 5.3 questions correctly (20%), and the twelfth graders answered 6.0 questions correctly (22%) (Table 13a). These results were analyzed using ANOVA, and this difference in scores between the grade levels was found to be significant (p=0.02).

Analysis of the pretest by topic (Table 13b) indicates that the students have similar levels of understanding of the different topics, as the scores in each topic are similar. Only, the differences in the scores of the free fall and Newton’s First Law categories between the 9th and 12th graders were significantly different according to ANOVA (p<0.05). This indicates that possibly at some point in either their academic careers or personal experience these twelfth graders who have never taken physics have acquired understanding of these topics that the ninth graders have not. It is also possible that these twelfth-grade students were able to answer these questions better because of their more advanced reading level or test-taking skills.

9th Grade 12th Grade

N 216 105Mean Score (out of 27) 5.3 6.0

% Correct 20 22 A: Overall Pretest Scores

23

9th

Grade12th

Grade

p-value (9th vs. 12th)

Free Fall* 40 54 0.0011st Law* 37 44 0.031

Kinematics Graphs 27 27 0.489

3rd Law 14 13 0.8742nd Law 9 11 0.181Impetus 7 7 0.781

B: Pretest Scores by Topic (% Correct) * indicates topics whose means are significantly different for the different grade levels

Table 13: Pretest ScoresA: Overall Pretest Scores

B: Pretest Scores by Topic 4.2 Interview Results and Discussion

A total of fifty-four 9th graders and forty-eight 12th graders were interviewed at some point during mechanics instruction. Because the protocols were rotated, most questions were answered by approximately five to twenty students from each grade. The most remarkable result of the interviews is that the students in the different grade levels generally answered the questions very similarly. Analysis of the responses can be made manageable by categorizing the questions into three general categories: student enjoyment of physics, student difficulties with physics, and understanding of selected physics concepts. 4.2.1 Student Enjoyment Category

In the student enjoyment category (tables 14a-e), approximately 50% of students in each grade level reported that what they liked most about their physics class was either the hands-on activities, or that what they are learning has practical, real-world applications (table 14a). Also, approximately 70% of students from each grade level reported that physics is either more enjoyable than or equally enjoyable as the other classes they are presently taking, while approximately 15-20% reported that physics is less enjoyable than the other classes they are presently taking (table 14d). A majority of students from each grade level reported that physics is more enjoyable than their past science classes (table 14b). This number is slightly higher for the 9th graders than the 12th graders. The attributes of the physics courses that are most commonly reported by the students are the subject is more interesting than other courses, the course is easier than other courses, and it is more hands-on than other courses (tables 14c and 14 e). These data seem to suggest that 9th graders are enjoying their physics classes at least as much as 12th graders are.

24

Question 1: What do you like most about your physics class?

A: Student responses to question 1(by percent)

Table 14: Student Enjoyment Category Interview Results A: Student Responses to Question 1Question 2: Compared to other science classes you have taken in the past, is physics more enjoyable,less enjoyable, or about the same?

B: Student responses to question 2 (by percent)

Question 2A: If you find physics more enjoyable than other science classes you have taken in the past, what makes it more enjoyable?

C: Student responses to question 2A (by percent)

Question 3: Compared to the other classes you are taking this year, is physics more enjoyable, less enjoyable, or about the same? D: Student responses to question 3 (by percent)

9th 12th

Hands on/experiments/labs 37 26Practical/real world applications 13 17Math/equations 10 9Figuring out how stuff works 8 9It is interesting 8 9Others 24 31

N=38 N=23

9th 12th

More 71 53Less 6 13Same 23 33

N=31 N=15

9th 12th

It is more interesting 91 75

It is more hands on 27 25

I like the teacher 18 13

It is easier 14 13N=22 N=8

9th 12th

More 54 50Less 14 20About the same

32 30

N=28 N=10

25

Table 14 ContinuedB: Student Responses to Question 2C: Student Responses to Question 2AD: Student Responses to Question 3

Question 3A: If you find physics more enjoyable than the other classes you are taking this year, what makes it more enjoyable?

E: Student responses to question 3A (by percent)Table 14 Continued

E: Student Responses to Question 3A

4.2.2 Physics Difficulty CategoryIn the difficulty category, there are also similarities between the grade

levels, as well as some differences (tables 15a-g). Approximately 2/3 of students from each grade level reported that physics is more difficult than the other classes they are presently taking (table 15d), with a majority of students from each grade level citing either the involvement of math or non-intuitive concepts as the factors that most contribute to their difficulties in physics class (table 15a). However, the students from the different grade levels did not agree on the difficulty of physics relative to past science courses. Sixty-three percent of 9th graders reported that physics is more difficult than past science courses, and only 31% of 12th graders reported this (table 15b). This may not be surprising considering the last science course the 9th graders took previous to physics was 8th grade science, and the last

9th 12th

It is more interesting 27 60

It is easier 13 40I like science 20 0

It is hands on 13 0

I like the teacher 7 20

I like math 7 0

N=15 N=5

26

science course for most 12th graders previous to physics was chemistry. This is likely to be especially true since the physics courses cover the more tangible subject of mechanics at the beginning of the school year when the interviews were done. However, a majority of students from each different grade level report that the level of math in physics is what makes it more difficult than other science courses (table 15c).

Another similarity and difference that was evident between the grade levels in the difficulty category was the level of counter-intuitiveness that students perceive in the concepts of physics, and how they dealt with these counter-intuitive concepts. In both grade levels, a large majority (70-80%) of students who were interviewed reported that the concepts they are learning in physics are sometimes counter-intuitive (table 15e). However, students from the different grade levels dealt with these concepts differently. When interview subjects were asked, “When you need to learn a concept in physics class that is counter-intuitive, how do you help yourself understand it?”, 41% of the 9th graders reported that they ask the teacher for help, while only 13% of the 12th graders reported asking the teacher for help. Eighty percent of the 12th graders who were interviewed reported that they help themselves learn the counter-intuitive concepts by thinking about them on their own, while only 49% of 9th graders who were interviewed reported doing this. Furthermore, 20% of the 12th graders interviewed reported that they accept what the teacher says even if it doesn’t make sense, while no 9th graders reported this (table 15f). These results seem to suggest that the 12th graders are less likely than the 9th graders to ask for help from their teacher, and more likely to try and figure things on their own when they are having difficulty understanding a concept. This increased level of independence in the 12th graders could be simply a function of their age and maturity.Question 4: What is most difficult about learning physics?

A: Student responses to question 4 (by percent)

Question 5: Compared to other science classes you have taken in the past, is physics more difficult, less difficult, or about the same? B: Student responses to question 5 (by percent)

9th 12th

Math/formulas/problem solving 74 69

It is not intuitive/it is hard 18 19

Others 8 12N=39 N=16

9th 12th

More 63 35Less 22 35About the same 15 30

N=27 N=17

27

Question 5A: Compared to other science classes you have taken in the past, is physics more difficult, less difficult, or about the same?

C: Student responses to question 5A (by percent)

Table 15: Physics Difficulty Category Interview ResultsA: Student Responses to Question 4B: Student Responses to Question 5C: Student Responses to Question 5A

Question 6: Compared to the other classes you are taking this year, is physics more difficult, less difficult, or about the same? D: Student responses to question 6 (by percent)

Question 6A: If physics is more difficult than your other classes, what makes it more difficult?

E: Student responses to question 6A (by percent)

9th 12th

There is more math 59 67

It is more in depth 35 0

The pace is faster 6 0

It is not intuitive 0 33

N=17 N=6

9th 12th

More 63 64Less 10 27About the same 27 9

N=30 N=11

9th 12th

The math is hard 36 50

It is not intuitive 36 50

Others 27 0N=19 N=6

28

Question 7: Are the concepts of physics ever counter-intuitive?

F: Student responses to question 7 (by percent)

Table 15 ContinuedD: Student Responses to Question 6E: Student Responses to Question 6AF: Student Responses to Question 7

Question 7A: When you are confronted with a concept that is counter-intuitive, what do you do to help yourself understand it?

G: Student responses to question 7A (by percent)Table15 Continued

G: Student Reponses to Question 7A

4.2.3 Physics Knowledge CategoryIn the physics knowledge category, a majority of students from the

different grade levels answered most of the questions very similarly – sometimes correctly, and sometimes incorrectly (tables 16a-i). For example, when asked about the acceleration of a vertically launched projectile at the top of its path, close to 100% of students from each grade level incorrectly stated that the acceleration would be zero at that point (table 16b). This is also true when the same question was asked on the written post-test where 82% of the students answered this question incorrectly. However, a majority of students from both grade levels answered most of the physics knowledge questions interview

9th 12th

Yes 71 83No 29 17

N=45 N=18

9th 12th

Ask teacher for help 41 13

Accept what teachers says even if doesn’t make sense

0 20

Think about it 49 80

Read text 6 0N=32 N=15

29

correctly and similarly. This is true even if they did not answer the same questions correctly on the written post-test.

When asked about the forces acting on a projectile, approximately 70% of the students from each grade level correctly did not mention the initial applied force (table 16a). However, a majority of students (85%) answered similar questions on the written post test as though they believe there is an impetus force.When asked about the motion of an object that is on a frictionless surface and given a push, a majority of students (10 of 14) from each grade level correctly stated that the object would travel at a constant velocity until something caused it to stop (table 16c).

This question was asked in a different form on the written post-test. Instead of asking what happens to a sled on a frictionless surface that is given a push, the question asks to choose which horizontal force is necessary to keep a sled on a frictionless surface moving at a constant velocity toward the right. Eighty-three of 105 students chose, “the force is to the right and is of constant strength.” Only 7 of 105 chose the correct answer, “no applied force is needed.” These drastically different results seem to indicate that those students who responded during the interviews that the sled would travel at a constant velocity until acted upon by an outside force were really reciting Newton’s First Law more than they were demonstrating a complete understanding of Newtonian motion. Furthermore, in the interviews, only a small percentage of students from each grade level (25% of 9th graders and 11% of 12th graders), were able to correctly identify the forces acting on this sled that is traveling at a constant velocity on a frictionless surface (table 16d). This indicates that even though they are able to recognize that the sled’s velocity will not change in the absence of an unbalanced force, they are not as able to recognize the actual forces that are acting on the sled. When asked why an object sliding across a table will quickly come to a stop, a majority of students from each grade level correctly stated that there is an outside force of friction acting on the bottle (table 16e).

When asked about letting go of two bowling balls that are identical except for mass from the same height above the Earth’s surface at the same time, 75% of students from each grade level correctly stated that both balls would hit the ground at approximately the same time (table 16f). This compares with 71% of students answering this question correctly on the written post-test. Even though 75 % of students from each grade level answered this interview question correctly, few of the students from the different levels were able to explain the physics behind this occurrence correctly. Only one 9th-grade student out of the fifteen (7%), and three of the twelve (25%) 12th graders, who answered this question correctly, when asked why the heavier ball doesn’t hit first, stated the reason (a=F/m) correctly. Only an additional three of the fifteen (20%) 9th graders, and four of the twelve (33%) 12th graders, knew that it had to do with “some kind of ratio.” Nine of the fifteen (60%) 9th-grade students, and five of the twelve (42%) of the 12th graders, who answered that the balls will land at the same time gave answers that indicated a complete lack of understanding of how Newton’s Second Law applies to this situation (such as “the balls have the same

30

inertia,” “the normal force acting on both balls is the same,” or “I don’t know”) (table 16g).

When asked about this same scenario on the moon, students from each grade level again answered the question very similarly, and the results indicate students’ common misconception of the effects of gravity on the moon. Thirty-six percent of 9th graders and 53% of twelfth graders correctly reported that the balls will hit the ground at the same time (table 16h). This compares with 59% of students answering this question correctly on the written post-test. Thirty-six percent of the 9th graders and 40% of the 12th graders interviewed reported that the balls do not fall because there is no gravity on the moon (table 16i). The interviewer did not probe more deeply into students reasoning behind this answer, but it is worth noting that 35-40% of the students who were interviewed reported believing that there is no gravity on the moon.

Table Question 8: Suppose you throw a tennis ball straight up into the air. After the ball leaves your hand, and while it is on the way up, what forces are acting on the ball? A: Student responses to question 8 (by percent)

Question 8A: What is the acceleration of the ball at the top of its path?

B: Student responses to question 8A (by percent)

9th 12th

Gravity and air resistance 75 55Gravity 0 11Applied force, gravity, air resist 17 22Applied force, gravity 8 11

N=12 N=9

9th 12th

9.8 m/s2 11 36Zero 89 64

N=9 N=14

31

Table 16: Physics Difficulty Interview ResultsA: Student Responses to Question 8 B: Student Responses to Question 8A

Question 9: A sled on a frictionless surface is given a push. After the push, what will the sled do if there is no friction or air resistance?

C: Student responses to question 9 (by percent)

Question 9A: What forces are acting on the sled after it is pushed?

D: Student responses to question 9A (by percent)

Question 9B: When an object is slid across the table, why does it stop?

E: Student responses to question 9B (by percent)Table 16 Continued

C: Student Responses to Question 9D: Student Responses to Question 9AE: Student Responses to Question 9B

9th 12th

Constant speed forever 100 71

Slow down and stop 0 21

Continue to speed up 0 7

N=8 N=14

9th 12th

Gravity only 0 44Don’t know 0 22Gravity and normal force 25 11Gravity and applied force 25 11None 50 11

N=8 N=9

9th 12th

There is an outside force of friction 57 67There is an outside force of gravity 21 0The applied force is gone 7 33The object is in contact with the table 7 0

N=14 N=6

32

Question 10: You hold two bowling balls in your hands that are identical except one is heavier than the other. If you hold them at the exact same height, and let go of them F: Student responses to question 10 at the exact same time, (by percent)what will happen?

Question 10A: If the balls land at the same time, why?

G: Student responses to question 10A (by percent)

Question 10B: If the heavier ball hits first, why?

H: Student responses to question 10B (by percent)

Table 16 ContinuedF: Student Responses to Question 10G: Student Responses to Question 10AH: Student Responses to Question 10B

9th 12th

They both land at the same time 71 75The heavier ball lands first 29 25

N=21 N=16

9th 12th

a=F/m 6 25Newton’s Second Law 6 0They are dropped from a small height 6 0Some kind of ratio 19 33Don’t know 19 8Others 44 33

N=16 N=12

9th 12th

The heavier ball has more gravitational force 60 50The heavier ball is less affected by air resistance 40 50

N=5 N=4

33

Question 10C: What if the same two bowling balls were dropped by a person standing on the surface of the moon?

I: Student responses to question 10C (by percent)

Table 16 ContinuedI: Student Responses to Question 10C

4.3 Attitudes and Expectations Survey Results and DiscussionDuring the course of this project the physics teachers who volunteered to

let their classes participate in this study were asked to fill out surveys for each of the classes that they taught to determine if any measurable differences exist in student population, curriculum, or teaching method. It was discovered that all the 12th grade classes were non-honors level, but the ninth grade classes were a mixture of honors level and non-honors level. Honors level is reserved for the most highly achieving students, and the non-honors level consists of everyone else. The non-honors level is typically called the “College Preparatory” (CP) level.

All the percentages from each group are within the range of percentages that were obtained when the MPEX survey was administered by its creators at the University of Maryland to approximately 1500 college students from five different universities who were enrolled in introductory physics courses. (Redish et al., 1998) As measured by these questions, the high school students in this study share similar attitudes and expectations toward physics as the college students in the University of Maryland study.

Analysis of these results, in Table 17, shows that the percentages of favorable, unfavorable, and neutral responses are almost identical for the 9th graders at the honor’s level, and the non-honors level 12th graders. Those percentages for the 9th graders at the non-honors level are only slightly different, with a slightly lower percentage of favorable responses and slightly higher percentages of unfavorable and neutral responses.

9th 12th

They both land at the same time 40 53Neither balls falls/there is no gravity 33 40The heavier ball lands first 13 7The lighter ball lands first 7 0Don’t know 7 0

N=15 N=15

34

Sub-Group %Favorable % Unfavorable %

Neutral

University of Maryland Study 45-60 20-30 20-30

9th GradeNon-Honors

N=11245 29 26

9th Grade HonorsN=104

53 23 24

12thGradeN=105 52 24 24

Table 17: Overall Results of Attitudes and Expectations SurveyAlthough the overall results show that approximately 50% of the

responses were favorable for each group of students, the results are different when the responses are split into the coherence and concepts clusters. Favorable responses to the coherence questions indicate the student agrees with the expert view that physics is a connected, consistent framework of knowledge, while unfavorable responses indicate the student sees physics as a bunch of unrelated facts. Favorable responses to the concepts questions indicate the student sees the concepts as more important than the equations, while unfavorable responses indicate the student sees the equations as more important than the underlying concepts.

The attitudes and expectations survey data in this study was broken down in this manner (Table 18). In general, the percentage of favorable responses to the coherence questions was above 50%, while the percentage of favorable responses to the concepts questions was below 50%. This indicates the students in this study generally see the different topics of physics as connected and related, but they generally do not think the concepts underlying the equations as more important than the equations themselves. This is generally consistent with the MPEX survey results obtained by the researchers at the University of Maryland. However, all of the high school students in this study answered the concepts questions less favorably than the college students in the University of Maryland study. The non-honors level 9th graders especially do not find the concepts underlying the equations as more important, as only 29% of those students answered the concepts questions favorably and 40% answered unfavorably. This is the only category for any group of students in which the unfavorable responses outnumber the favorable responses.

35

Sub-Group Coherence Concepts

University of Maryland Study 53 / 25 / 22 47 / 32 / 21

9th GradeNon-Honors

N=11253 / 23 / 24 29 / 40 / 31

9th Grade HonorsN=104

59 / 19 / 22 39 / 34 / 27

12th GradeN=105 59 / 20 / 21 40 / 34 / 26

Table 18: Attitudes and Expectations Survey Results by Category(% Favorable / % Unfavorable / % Neutral)

4.4 Physics Concepts Post-Test Results and DiscussionFrom the teacher survey results, it was discovered that all the 12th grade

classes were similar in that they were all traditionally taught (a mixture of lecture, lab, small group activities, and problem solving), non-honors level classes. However, two large differences were discovered in the 9th grade classes. They were a mixture of honors and non-honors levels, as well as a mixture of two different instructional methods. Some of the classes were taught with a traditional method of instruction and some were taught with a modeling method of instruction. The modeling method of instruction is a student-centered, inquiry-based method in which the students perform experiments and analyze the data to create mathematical models that are used to create physical rules and equations (Wells et al., 1995). These differences in instruction required that both the non-honors and honors level 9th grade populations be divided into sub-groups of those that received modeling-based instruction and those that did not.

4.4.1 Our Data and ResultsThe honors level 9th graders had the highest post-test scores and <g>’s of

any of the sub-groups. The non-honors level 9th graders had the lowest post-test scores and <g>’s of any of the sub-groups. All the <g>’s (i.e., post-test score vs. pretest score) are significant except for those of the 9th graders in the non-honors level classes that did not receive modeling-based instruction. For this sub-group only, the post-test scores are not significantly different from the pretest scores. The results for each sub-group are displayed in Table 19.

Modeling appeared to have a large effect on the non-honors level ninth-grade students’ performance on the post-test and their normalized gains. These results are not inconsistent with data that have been collected on the efficacy of modeling in previous studies. Hake (Hake, 1998), Wells (Wells, et al., 1995) and Hestenes (Hestenes, 2000) found that the normalized gains of students in courses

36

that employ modeling are approximately twice as large (40-60%) as those of students in traditionally taught courses (20-35%). In Hake’s, Wells’ and Hestenes’ results, this was generally true for both honors and non-honors level students. However, in this study, the use of modeling appeared to have no effect on the honors level ninth-grade students’ performance on the post-test or their normalized gains compared to traditional instruction.

Sub-group N

Pretest Score (out of

27)

Post-test Score (out of

27)

<g>

p-value(post-test

vs. pretest)

9th GradeNon-honors

Non-modeling80 5.6 6.3 .03 0.072

9th GradeNon-honorsModeling

32 5.0 8.9 .18 0.000

9th GradeHonors

Non-modeling28 5.5 13.0 .35 0.000

9th GradeHonors

Modeling76 4.9 12.5 .35 0.000

12th GradeNon-honors

Non-modeling105 6.0 10.9 .23 0.000

Table 19: Overall Post-Test Scores and <g>Because the results of the two 9th grade honors sub-groups were so similar,

a comparison of their means was performed. This was done to determine the level of statistical significance of the difference between their means. It was found that the p-value for comparison of the post-test means was 0.977. This means we can report with 97.7% confidence that the difference between these means is caused by random effects, and therefore not measurable effects. In other words, we can report with only 2.3% confidence that this difference in means is caused by measurable effects and not random effects. The p-value for the normalized gain means is 1.000. This means we can report with 100% confidence that any differences in the normalized gains in these sub-groups are caused by random effects and not measurable effects. Given these high p-values, all 9th grade honors level students were placed in one group for comparison with the other groups.

37

The post-test scores (Table 20) and normalized gains (Table 21) for each sub-group are significantly different from each other, except for the differences in both the post-test scores (p=0.056) and normalized gains (p=0.239) between the non-honors level 9th graders who received modeling instruction and the 12th graders. Given the large difference in <g> between the 9th-grade non-honors students who were taught with the modeling method of instruction and those who were not, the effectiveness of modeling seems to be evident for this sub-group regardless of whether or not those students achieve the same post-test scores and gains as the 12th-grade students. For descriptive statistics on the pretest scores, post-test scores and normalized gains of each sub-group, see Appendix E.

Sub-group

9th GradeNon-honors

Non-modeling

9th GradeNon-honors

Modeling

All9th GradeHonors


Non-modeling

9th GradeNon-honors

Non-modeling

1.000


0.010 1.000

All9th GradeHonors 0.000 0.000 1.000


Non-modeling

0.000 0.056 0.008 1.000

Table 20: p-values for physics concept survey post-test score comparisons

38

Sub-group

9th GradeNon-honors

Non-modeling

9th GradeNon-honors

Modeling

All9th GradeHonors


Non-modeling

9th GradeNon-honors

Non-modeling

1.000


0.002 1.000

All9th GradeHonors 0.000 0.000 1.000


Non-modeling

0.000 0.239 0.000 1.000

Table 21: p-values for <g> comparisons for physics concepts surveyWhen the results are broken down by topic, as shown in Table 22, we see

that each sub-group had the most difficulty with the topics of impetus and Newton’s Second Law. Based on these results, it appears that a large majority of students in each sub-group have the impetus (force required for motion) misconception even after instruction, and therefore, it is logical that the gains for Newton’s Second Law are also small.

In general, even though the non-modeling, non-honors level 9th graders normalized gains are smaller than those of the other sub-groups, the trends of improvement for each sub-group are similar. Each sub-group achieved its highest gains in free fall, Newton’s First Law, and Newton’s Third Law. Impetus and Newton’s Second Law were the lowest scores for each sub-group. These results indicate that while all the non-honors 9th graders had difficulty with impetus and Newton’s Second Law, the modeling method of instruction can help these students achieve roughly the same gains as the 12th graders on each of the other topics.

39

Sub-group

Free fall Impetus Kinematics

Graphs1st

Law2nd

Law3rd

Law9th Grade

Non-honorsNon-

modeling

0 1 0 9 1 6

9th GradeNon-

honorsModeling

42 1 23 33 0 50

All9th GradeHonors

47 17 41 39 9 65

12th

GradeNon-

honorsNon-

modeling

40 14 15 30 5 45

Table 22: <g> by Topic (%) on physics concepts survey4.4.2 The Impetus Misconception

The impetus questions ask about the net force and acceleration on an object that is thrown vertically into the air as it is traveling upward, at the top of its path, and while it is traveling downward. The correct Newtonian answers are that the net force and the acceleration are both constant and in the downward direction for the entire time that the object is in the air.

On the pretest, only 8% of the responses in this category were correct. Sixty-four percent of the responses indicated that the net force and acceleration are both upward and decreasing as the object is traveling upward; both are zero at the peak of the object’s path; and both are downward and increasing as the object travels downward. This is consistent with previous research (Clement, 1982, Hestenes, et al, 1992) in which students either confuse the net force and the acceleration with the velocity, or they think that there must be a net force in the direction of travel in order for motion to be possible. Students with this impetus misconception believe that the force applied to the object by the hand that is throwing it stays with the object and dies away with time. They also believe that this force that stays with the object must be larger than the gravitational force as the object travels upward. When the magnitude of the applied force is the same as the gravitational force, the object stops traveling upward. When the gravitational force is larger than the applied force, it travels downward. Prior to instruction in physics, 64% of the students in this study seem to have this impetus misconception.

40

On the post-test, the results are only slightly different from the pretest. Eighteen percent of the responses to these questions are correct, and 55% are consistent with the impetus misconception. 4.4.3 Comparison of physics concepts survey results with previous large-scale studies

Because the assessment of 9th graders taking physics has not been done previously, there are no data available for comparison with the results of this study. Therefore, the data from this study must be compared with previous studies on university students and 12th graders.

In this study, the data for <g> generally correlate with published results from previous studies. Beichner (1994) found that university students generally answered 40% of the questions on the entire TUG-K post-test correctly. In this study, these high school students collectively answered 41% of these selected TUG-K questions correctly on the post-test. Hestenes, Wells and Swackhamer (1992) found that the normalized gain for non-honors level 12th graders on the entire FCI post-test was in the 20-30% range. In this study, the free fall, and Newton’s First Law questions were those that were taken from the FCI. The normalized gains on these questions were generally at or slightly above the 30% level. Thornton and Sokoloff (1995) found very little improvement on the FMCE post-test compared to the FMCE pretest, i.e. <g>’s between 5% and 20%, when students were taught with traditional methods. In this study, the impetus, Newton’s Second Law, and Newton’s Third Law questions were taken from the FMCE. The normalized gains for impetus and Newton’s Second Law were generally within this 5-20% range. However, in general the normalized gains for Newton’s Third Law in this study are well above this 5-20% range. These results, in general, indicate that the performance of the students in this study is similar to the performance of students in previous studies (table 23).

While these comparisons indicate a general correlation of the results of previous studies and this study, it should be noted that the questions that were chosen for this study were, in many cases, thought to be the least difficult questions of the surveys. These less difficult questions were chosen so the 9th graders could understand and interpret them more easily. This could account for the students in this study answering approximately 65% of the FCI questions correctly on the post-test when only about 45-50% would be expected. This could also account for the higher than expected normalized gains on some of the FMCE questions. Because the FMCE questions were used for three different topics (Impetus, Newton’s Second Law, Newton’s Third Law) in the mechanics concepts survey used in this study, there is a wide range of <g>’s (4-40%) for FMCE excerpts. This is a reflection of the low gains on Newton’s Second Law questions (4%), and the higher gains on Newton’s Third Law questions (40%). For a question-by-question comparison of the results in this study with previous studies, see Appendices F and G.

41

Sub-group TUG-K FCI FMCEPrevious Results for Traditional Methods

of Instruction~40%1 45-50%2 10-20%3

Previous Results for Interactive

Engagement Methods of Instruction

N/A* 60-80%2 60-80%3

12th graders in this study 38% 66% 29%

Honors level 9th

graders in this study 55% 63% 36%

CP level 9th graders with Modeling

method of instruction

41% 55% 21%

CP level 9th graders with traditional

method of instruction

28% 46% 12%

Table 23: Comparison of Post-test Scores from Previous Studies to Post-test Scores from Physics Concepts Survey Questions in This Study

1. Beichner, 19942. Hestenes et al, 19923. Thornton and Sokoloff, 1995* Beichner only reported results for traditional instruction

42

Sub-group TUG-K FCI FMCEPrevious Results for Traditional

Methods of Instruction

N/A* 20-30%2 5-20%3

Previous Results for Interactive Engagement Methods of Instruction

N/A* 40-60%2 40-60%3

12th graders in this study 15% 35% 21%

Honors level 9th

graders in this study

41% 43% 30%

CP level 9th

graders with Modeling method

of instruction

23% 38% 17%

CP level 9th

graders with traditional method

of instruction

0% 5% 3%

Table 24: Comparison of <g> from Previous Studies to <g> for Physics Concepts Survey Questions in This Study

* Beichner did not report pretest scores on the TUG-K2. Hestenes et al, 19923. Thornton and Sokoloff, 1995

4.4.4 Comparison of FCI Results to a Small-Scale Study in MaineIn section 2.1.5, the results of an unnamed high school’s administration of

the FCI to its students were reported. This high school was in the process of transitioning from a physics last sequence to a Physics First sequence during the 2002-2003 to 2004-2005 school years. During these years, both their 9th and 12th grade students were taking physics for the first time. They administered the FCI to all the students taking physics in their school. Their results showed that the non-honors level students in both 9th and 12th grades achieved <g>’s of 24-25%. This correlates with the 12th grade <g>’s of 23% in this study, but not with the 7% <g>’s for the population of non-honors-level 9th graders in this study. Their honor’s level 9th graders achieved the highest <g>’s (52%) of any sub-group in their school, which is consistent with the results of this study.4.4.5 Student Achievement of Newtonian Thinking

Hestenes and Halloun (1995) define the entry threshold, and the mastery level of Newtonian thinking as achieving a score of 60 % and 85%, respectively,

43

on the FCI. While the complete FCI was not used as the instrument in this study, these values are a good starting place to determine who achieved these levels of Newtonian thinking in this study. As a population, none of the sub-groups in this study achieved even the entry threshold of Newtonian thinking. However, there were some individuals who did achieve this. In the non-honors, non-modeling 9th grade sub-group, 1 of 76 students (1%) achieved the entry threshold into Newtonian thinking. In the non-honors, modeling 9th grade sub-group, 1 of 28 students (4%) achieved the entry threshold. In the honors 9th grade subgroup, 24 of 105 students (23%) achieved the entry threshold, and 3 of those students (3% total) achieved the mastery level. In the 12th grade sub-group, 18 of 104 students (17%) achieved the entry threshold, and 2 of those students (2% total) achieved the mastery level (table 25). Using these standards, a large majority of students from each sub-group are below the entry threshold into Newtonian thinking.

Sub-group

Percentage of Students

Achieving at Least Entry Level

Percentage of Students

Achieving Mastery Level

Non-honors, Non-modeling 9th Grade 1 0

Non-honors, Modeling9th Grade

3 0

Honors Level9th Grade 23 3

12th Grade 17 2 Table 25: Percentage of Students Achieving Entry and Mastery Level of Newtonian Thinking defined by Halloun and Hestenes (1995)

4.4.6 Effects of Other VariablesIn the surveys that were distributed to teachers, the teachers reported the

total amount of time (in weeks) they spent in mechanics instruction. They also reported the percentage of class time each week they spent each week engaged in different types of instruction (lecture, lab, small group work, inquiry and modeling). The effects of modeling vs. non-modeling and honors vs. non-honors on the 9th grade sub-group have already been demonstrated in the analysis of the data. ANOVA was performed on the data in order to determine which of the other variables may also affect the normalized gains.

For the 9th grade non-honors population, any differences in these variables were tied directly to the method of instruction (modeling vs. non-modeling). The classes at this level who used modeling as a method of instruction spent considerably more time on mechanics instruction (20 weeks for modeling vs. 9.5 weeks for non-modeling). However, any differences in the normalized gains of

44

these sub-groups are more likely due to the modeling method as opposed to the amount of time spent on the topic.

At the 9th grade honors level, the gains of the different sub-groups (modeling vs. non-modeling) are identical, so none of the variables had any effect on the gains of this population.

The data from the 12th grade population was the only data that did not include any effects of modeling as none of the teachers in this population used modeling. The effects of each of the variables (number of weeks spent on mechanics, percentage of class time engaged in lecture, percentage of class time engaged in labs, percentage of class time engaged in small group work, and percentage of class time engaged in inquiry) on the normalized gain were tested using ANOVA. For this population, none of these variables had a significant effect (table 26). Therefore, it can be concluded that any differences in <g> between sub-groups are more likely to be the result of ability level (honors vs. non-honors) or method of instruction (modeling vs. non-modeling).

Variable p-value for variable’s effect on <g>

Number of Weeks of Mechanics Instruction 0.092

Percentage of Class Time SpentOn Lecture-based Activities 0.114

Percentage of Class Time Spent On Lab-based Activities 0.271

Percentage of Class Time SpentOn Small Group Work 0.087

Percentage of Class Time SpentOn Inquiry-based Activities 0.129

Table 26: Effects of different variables on <g> for the 12th grade population

The activities of student-centered and interactive methods of instruction such as modeling require more instructional time. This increase in instructional time introduces this new variable when these methods are included in a study. In order to try and control for this variable, Redish and colleagues at the Universtiy of Maryland (1997) conducted a study in which a physics instructor taught and tested two different sections of the same introductory physics class. One section used microcomputer-based labs (MBL), which require an increase in instructional time. The same instructor taught the second section using “lecture demonstrations with the same MBL apparatus with much student interaction and discussion.”

These lectures lasted the same amount of time as the MBL labs in which the students interacted with the MBL apparatus. On a post-test consisting of five questions, the students in the lecture section (n=100) answered 36% of the questions incorrectly, while the students in the lab section (n=161) averaged 14% incorrect (Redish et al., 1997). This is an indication that the interactive method of instruction, and not the amount of instructional time, that most affects student learning. This supports the finding of our study in which the use of modeling as a

45

method of instruction had a significant effect on the post-test scores and normalized gains, but the amount of time spent using traditional methods of instruction did not.

4.5 Summary and ImplicationsThe data collected suggest that the students in both grade levels enter their

respective physics courses with similar backgrounds in and understanding of physics as indicated by their pretest scores. These pretest scores are generally similar to those of 12th graders on the complete versions of the well known and thoroughly tested instruments from which our pretest was assembled. In general, pretest scores on the TUG-K, FMCE and FCI are similar to those that would be achieved by random guessing. (Thornton and Sokoloff, 1998; Beichner, 1994; Hake, 1998) Student performance on the survey used in this study was also slightly better than random guessing.

The students also appear similar affectively, reporting similar attitudes toward and expectations of their physics courses in interviews with the investigator, and on the written survey of attitudes and expectations. The students’ performance on this survey is also similar to the performance of university students in introductory physics courses on the MPEX. Results from the MPEX show these students generally answer 45-60% of the questions favorably, 20-30% of the questions unfavorably, and 20-30% of the questions neutrally. In this study, the students from each population (9th grade non-honors, 9th grade honors, and 12th grade non-honors) were within these ranges. However, the ninth-grade students at the non-honors level were generally on the lower end (45%) of this favorable range, and the higher end (29%) of this unfavorable range. The apparent difference in attitudes and expectations of these students is most noticeable when the survey is separated into its constituent categories of coherence and concepts. Slightly more than 50% of students in each population responded favorably to questions regarding the coherence of physics. However, approximately 40% of students in this study responded favorably to questions regarding the relative importance of physics concepts and physics equations. This 40% rate of favorable responses for this category is lower than the 50% rate of favorable responses to the coherence questions. It is also lower than the 47% of university students who answered favorably to this category in the University of Maryland study (Redish, et al., 1998).

Favorable responses to the concepts questions indicate that students agree with the expert view that the physics concepts are more important than the physics equations. The lower favorable response rate of these high school students may indicate that high school students are more easily overwhelmed by the use of math and equations in their physics classes than the university students are. This is corroborated by the interview results in this study, in which a large majority of students who were interviewed reported that the mathematical component and the use of equations in their physics classes were the most

46

difficult aspects of physics for them. Furthermore, the rate of favorable responses in this category for non-honors level 9th graders is lower than the rest of the students in this study. Only 29% of 9th grade non-honors students responded favorably to these questions, compared to approximately 40% of the rest of the students in this study. This is an interesting result because the non-honors, ninth-grade physics courses are thought to be generally more conceptual than the twelfth-grade courses. This indicates that either the non-honors, ninth-grade courses in this study are not as conceptual as they are assumed to be, or that the typical non-honors, ninth-grade student is more easily overwhelmed by even the small emphasis on equations that exists in the traditional ninth-grade physics course.

The differences reported by the non-honors, ninth-grade students may be an indication of the significant differences in conceptual understanding of kinematics and mechanics concepts for this population that were revealed in the post-test data. The students in this sub-group achieved the lowest post-test scores and the lowest normalized gains, and these low scores and gains are amplified when the method of instruction these students received is considered. The post-test scores of the students from this population whose teachers used traditional lecture- and lab-based instruction were not significantly higher than their pretest scores. The post-test scores and normalized gains of the students from this population whose teachers use a modeling-based method of instruction were significantly higher, and approached the level of the 12th grade students – all of whom were non-honors level and received traditional instruction.

Finally, students in each grade level, regardless of instruction type, had the most difficulty with the impetus misconception, and consequently Newton’s Second Law. The pretest scores and the normalized gains for these topics were the lowest of any topic for each population of student. This is an indication that the intuition of an impetus force is deeply seated with students, and it is hard to help these students understand the correct relationship between net force, acceleration and motion. Therefore, it is easy to see why the students in this study also did not do well with the Newton’s Second Law questions. These students with the impetus misconception see a relationship between net force and motion rather than the correct Newtonian relationship between net force and acceleration.

47

Chapter 5Conclusions

The pretest and attitudes and expectations results indicate that, in general, students in both 9th and 12th grade are equally ready to learn physics and have about equal understanding of the content entering a physics course. The post-test results indicate that, in general, ninth graders are capable of understanding kinematics and mechanics concepts as well as twelfth graders do. However, the level of the ninth-grade student and the teaching method used in a 9th grade course can have very significant effects on student learning in the class. Honors-level ninth graders scored significantly higher on the post-test than both their non-honors-level counterparts in both the ninth and twelfth grades.

The relative success of the non-honors-level ninth graders whose teachers employed a modeling-based method of instruction compared to their counterparts whose teachers did not use modeling indicates that schools and teachers considering teaching physics to these students need to carefully consider how the course will be taught. These results suggest that in order for these students to be able to understand the basic kinematics and mechanics concepts that are typically taught in an introductory high school physics course, teachers need to employ a more student-centered approach rather than the traditional lecture-based approach that is employed in most twelfth-grade courses.

Furthermore, the non-honors level 9th graders responded favorably to a relatively low percentage of the statements in the concepts portion of the attitudes and expectations survey. This indicates that these students may be more easily intimidated by an equations-based approach to physics, and that a more careful approach to mathematical learning is necessary at this level.

It is important to note that the schools, teachers, and students who participated in this study were all volunteers who received no compensation for their participation. This may result in a self-selection issue that could potentially skew the results, i.e. the schools, teachers and students who were motivated to participate may have been more confident in their performance on the surveys, and those that were not confident did not volunteer. It is also important to note that there are many variables that cannot be controlled when conducting an experiment of this type. Most noticeable are the differences in curricula, student populations, and teaching styles that exist from classroom to classroom and from school to school. Another factor is that all the schools in this study that teach physics to ninth graders, teach physics to all ninth graders, while physics is an elective course in the schools that teach physics to twelfth graders. The differences (honors vs. non-honors, modeling vs. non-modeling) that were represented in the population of ninth-grade students were not represented in the population of twelfth-grade students. All of the twelfth-grade students were non-honors level whose teachers employed a traditional method of instruction. It would be helpful to include sub-groups of twelfth graders students at the honors level and sub-groups who received modeling-based instruction. The exclusion of these sub-groups leaves some important questions unanswered, such as:

How would honors-level 12th graders compare to the other sub-groups?

48

What effect would a modeling-based method of instruction have on 12th graders?

The self-selection issue that may exist in this study may also exist in the other sources of information on this topic. Some teachers who teach Physics First frequently contribute presentations at physics education conferences, and articles to physics education journals. They generally share their positive experiences with the Physics First sequence, but rarely provide any empirical data on its effectiveness. It is unlikely that schools and teachers who have not had success teaching Physics First would volunteer to share their experiences by speaking at a conference or submitting an article to a journal.

Other questions that would be beneficial to answer are: Are any schools that have made the switch to Physics First struggling with this new sequence? Are there any schools who have considered switching to Physics

First that decided not to make switch? If so, what factors influenced their decision not to switch? Are there any schools that made the switch to Physics First and

switched back to the traditional sequence because it was unsuccessful?

If so, what made it unsuccessful?As logical or illogical as teaching physics to ninth graders may seem to

different people, until more empirical data is collected, arguments for and against this sequence will remain largely opinion-based rather than fact-based. Therefore, there are some additional important questions that need to be answered when investigating the effectiveness of Physics First that were not addressed in this study. Advocates of Physics First argue that modern biology courses have become more sophisticated, and a physics and chemistry background is necessary to understand the biochemical concepts that now dominate these courses. While this is certainly a logical argument, there is little to no empirical data in existence that either supports or refutes this argument. Studies should be done on the effect of Physics First on the performance of students in their subsequent chemistry and biology courses. A related study would examine the effect of a chemistry course on performance in a subsequent biology course, especially in microbiological concepts.

Advocates of Physics First also point to other benefits of this sequence such as helping students achieve a better understanding of algebra by teaching physics during the same year that Algebra I is taught, increasing the numbers of 12th graders taking science since 12th grade will be freed up for more interesting electives, and ultimately creating more science majors at the university level by creating more interest in the sciences in high school. While these arguments may also seem logical, additional studies need to be performed to determine whether or not they are true. Without these data, advocates of Physics First may face an uphill battle when trying to convince the physics (and chemistry and biology) and education communities of the benefits of this sequence. Since the majority of 9th graders taking physics are non-honors level students, the results for these students are the most important. In general, the

49

honors level students are more self-motivated, and their level of success is less dependent on the classroom situation. Any complete study should consider the success of honors level students, but because the success of the non-honors level student is more dependent upon the curriculum, enthusiasm of the teacher, teaching method, etc., it is these students who will be the standard-bearers of the success for Physics First. If there are factors that improve the likelihood of success with these students, these factors need to be identified. If Physics First is not successful with these students, it cannot be considered successful. As Art Hobson says in the November, 2005 edition of The Physics Teacher, “Physics First will succeed or fail depending on the way it is implemented. If all it does is offer a math-based first course focusing on classical physics, similar to many first physics courses now offered in the 11th or 12th grade, it will fail for the same reason that those courses fail” (Hobson, 2005).

50

REFERENCES

AAPT Statement on Physics First, 2002.http://www.aapt.org/policy/physicsfirst.cfm

Bardeen, M.G., and Lederman, L., “Coherence in Science Education,” Science 281, 178-179 (1998).

Beichner, R.J., “Testing Student Interpretation of Kinematics Graphs,” American Journal of Physics 62 (8), 750-762 (1994).

Chung, A.C.Y., and Cohen, S.N., “Genome Construction between bacterial species in vitro: Replication and expression of Straphylococcus plasmid genes in Esherichia coli,” The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 71, 1030-1034 (1974).

Clement, J., “Students’ Preconceptions in Introductory Mechanics,” American Journal of Physics 50(1), 66-71(1982).

Ewald, G., Bond Hickman, J., Hickman, P., Myers, F., “Physics First: The Right-Side-Up Science Sequence,” The Physics Teacher 43, 319-320 (2005).

Glasser, H., “The Effect of Ninth-Grade Physics in One Private School on Students’ Performance on the Mathematics Section of the PSAT” (1999),http://www-ed.fnal.gov/arise.

Haber-Schaim, U., “High School Physics should be Taught before Chemistry and Biology,” The Physics Teacher 22, 330-332 (1984).

Hake, R.R., “Interactive engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” American Journal of Physics 66, 64-74 (1998).

Hamilton, D.K., “Physics and the High School Sophomore,” The Physics Teacher 8, 457-458 (1970).

Hehn, J., Newschatz, M., “Physics for All? A Million and Counting!” Physics Today 106, 37-43 (2006).

Hestenes, D., Halloun, I., “Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory,” The Physics Teacher 33, 502-506 (1995).

Hestenes, D., Wells, M., Swackhamer, G., “Force Concept Inventory,” The Physics Teacher 30, 141-166 (1992).

51

http://www-ed.fnal.gov/arise

http://www.aapt.org/policy/physicsfirst.cfm

Hestenes, D., “Findings of the Modeling Workshop Project” (2000), http://modeling.asu.edu/r&e/research.html. Hickman, P., “Freshman Physics?” The Science Teacher 57 (3), 45-47 (1990).

Hobson A., “Considering Physics First,” The Physics Teacher 43, 485 (2005).

Lederman, L.M., “Getting High School Science in Order,” Technology Review, 61-62 (1996).

Lederman, L.M., “A Science Way of Thinking,” Education Week XVIII, 1-3 (1999).

Lederman, L.M., “Revolution in Science Education: Put Physics First!” Physics Today 101, 11-12 (2001).

Lederman, L.M., “Physics First?” The Physics Teacher 43, 6-7 (2005).

McLaughlin, G., “Effect of Modeling Instruction on Development of Proportional Reasoning I: an empirical study of high school freshmen” (2003), http://modeling.asu.edu/modeling-hs.html.

McLaughlin, G., “Effect of Modeling Instruction on Development of Proportional Reasoning II: theoretical background” (2003), http://modeling.asu.edu/modeling-hs.html.

Mervis, J., “U.S. Tries Variations on High School Curriculum,” Science 281, 161-162 (1998).

Meyers, F., “A Case for a Better High School Science Sequence in the 21st Century,” The Physics Teacher 25, 78-81 (1987).

Mullis, K., et al., “Specific enzymatic amplification of DNA in vitro: the polymerase chain reaction,” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 51, 263-273 (1986).

National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE), A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform (NCEE, Washington, DC, 1983)

Pallrand, G., Lindenfeld, P., “The Physics Classroom Revisited: Have We Learned Our Lesson?” Physics Today 85, 46-52 (1985).

Palombi, J., “The Illogic of Teaching Biology before Chemistry and Physics,” The Physics Teacher 9, 39-40 (1971).

52

http://modeling.asu.edu/modeling-hs.html



http://modeling.asu.edu/r&e/research.html

Pasero, S., “The State of Physics-First Programs,” Project ARISE, June 2001.

Physics First Website, http://members.aol.com/physicsfirst.

Project ARISE final report (revised 2003),http://fnalpubs.fnal.gov/archive/2001/pub/pub-01-206.pdf.

Project ARISE website, http://www-ed.fnal.gov/arise

Redish, E.F., Saul, J.M., Steinberg, R.N., “On the Effectiveness of Active-engagement Microcomputer-based Laboratories,” American Journal of Physics 65, 45-54 (1997).

Redish, E.F., Saul, J.M., Steinberg, R.N., “Student Expectations in Introductory Physics,” American Journal of Physics 66, 212-224 (1998).

Sanger, F., Nicklen, S., Carlson, A.R., “DNA Sequencing with Chain-Terminating Inhibitors,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 74, 5463-5467 (1977). Scott, E., “Comparing NAEP, TIMSS, and PISA in Mathematics and Science,” National Center for Educational Statistics, December 2004.

Schwab, M., Bishop, J.M., Varnus, H.E., “Human N-myc gene contributes to neoplastic transformation of mammalian cells in culture,” Nature 316, 160-162 (1985).

Sheppard, K., Robbins, D.M., “Chemistry, the Central Science? The History of the High School Science Sequence,” Journal of Chemical Education 82, 561-566 (2005).

Sheppard, K., Robbins, D.M., “Lessons from the Committee of Ten,” The Physics Teacher 40, 426-431 (2002).

Singer S.J., Nicholson, G.L., “The fluid mosaic model of the structure of cell membranes,” Science 175, 720-731 (1972).

Sousa, D.A., “Are We Teaching High School Science Backward?” NASSP Bulletin 80 (577), 9-15 (1996).

State of Maine Learning Resultshttp://www.maine.gov/education/lres/homepage.htm

Swartz, C., “Let’s Do Away with High School Courses in Earth Science, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics,” The Physics Teacher 9, 65-66 (1971).

53

http://www.maine.gov/education/lres/homepage.htm

http://www-ed.fnal.gov/arise

http://fnalpubs.fnal.gov/archive/2001/pub/pub-01-206.pdf

http://members.aol.com/physicsfirst

Thornton, R.K., “Conceptual Dynamics: Changing Student Views of Force and Motion,” in Thinking Physics for Teaching (Bernadini, Tarsitani, Vicenti, 1995).

Thornton, R.K., Sokoloff, D.R., “Assessing Student Learning of Newton’s Laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula,” American Journal of Physics 66, 338-352 (1998).

Washton, N.S., Teaching Science Creatively in the Secondary Schools. (W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, 1967), pp. 78-79.

Wells, M., Hestenes D., Swackhamer, G., “A Modeling Method for High School Physics Instruction,” American Journal of Physics 63 (7), 606-619 (1995).

54

Appendix APhysics Teacher Survey

Please answer the following questions to help provide a context for the explanation of the student survey data. If you had classes from different grade levels or academic levels participate in this study, please complete a different survey for each class.

Your name: ___________________________ Your school: ________________

Textbook used: ________________________ Grade of your physics class: ____

Level of your physics class: Honor College Prep General Heterogeneous

Use the following numbers to indicate how much time was spent on the following topics:0 = no time 1 = less than one week 2 = 1-2 weeks 3 = more than 2 weeks____ Kinematics ____ Graphing Skills

____ Newton’s First Law ____ Newton’s Second Law

____ Newton’s Third Law ____ Energy and Momentum

Please indicate the approximate numbers of hours per week for each style of teaching that you used:____ Lecture ____ Lab

____ Whiteboarding ____ Small group work

____ Modeling (As described by Arizona State University, students perform experiments, and mathematically model the data they collect to develop physics rules and equations.)

____ Inquiry (Students perform experiments, and/or participate in tutorials and questioning strategies that allow them to use inductive reasoning to make discoveries about physics concepts.)

_____ Other (please specify)

How often is probeware used in your class? (please circle)

Daily A couple times a week Weekly A couple times a month Once a month or less

Other comments about your classroom/students/school/curriculum that may be helpful:

55

Appendix B has been intentionally omitted. It consists of sample questions.

Appendix CPhysics Expectations Survey

Here are 14 statements which may or may not describe your beliefs about this course. You are asked to rate each statement by circling the correct letters, where the letters mean the following:SD: Strongly Disagree D: Disagree N: Neutral A: Agree SA: Strongly Agree

Answer the questions by circling the letters that best expresses your feeling. Work quickly. Don’t overanalyze the meaning of each statement. They are meant to be taken as straightforward and simple. If you don’t understand a statement, leave it blank. If you understand, but have no strong opinion, circle N. If an item combines two statements, and you disagree with either one, choose SD or D.

1 Physical laws have little relation to what I experience in the real world. SD D N A SA

2Knowledge in physics consists of many

pieces of information each of which applies primarily to a specific situation. SD D N A SA

3 Only very few specially qualified people are capable of really understanding physics. SD D N A SA

4 In this course, adept use of formulas is the main thing needed to solve physics

problems effectively. SD D N A SA

5 Learning physics helps me understand situations in my everyday life. SD D N A SA

6The results of an exam don’t give me any

useful guidance to improve my understanding of the course material. SD D N A SA

7The main skill I get out of this course is

learning how to solve physics word problems. SD D N A SA

8Understanding physics means being able to

recall something you’ve read or been shown. SD D N A SA

9

“Problem solving” in physics basically means matching problems with facts or

equations and then substituting values to get a number.

SD D N A SA

56

10 A significant problem in this course is being able to memorize all the information I need

to know.SD D N A SA

11

The main skill I get out of this course is to learn how to reason logically about the

physical world.SD D N A SA

12To really help us learn physics, teachers

should show us how to solve lots of problems, instead of spending so much time

on concepts, and one or two problems.SD D N A SA

13I use mistakes I make on the homework and the exam problems as clues to what I need

to do to understand the material better. SD D N A SA

14In this physics course, I do not expect to

understand equations in an intuitive sense. They just need to be taken as givens. SD D N A SA

57

Appendix DInterview Protocols

I. Ball Tossed Straight Up Protocol

Consider a ball that is tossed straight up into the air by a person standing on the ground.

1. After the ball leaves the person’s hand, and as it is going up, describe the ball’s motion.

2. What forces are acting on the ball as it is going up? In which directions are each of these forces acting? Is one force larger than the other? Does this change as the ball is going up?

3. As the ball is coming back down, describe the ball’s motion.

4. What forces are acting on the ball as it is going down? In which directions are each of these forces acting? Is one force larger than the other? Does this change as the ball is going down?

5. Describe the ball’s motion when the ball is at its highest point.

6. What forces are acting on the ball when it is at its highest point? In which directions are each of these forces acting? Is one force larger than the other?

II. Sled on Ice Protocol

Consider a sled on a smooth icy surface. The surface is so smooth it can be considered frictionless. A person standing on the ice is wearing spiked shoes so she can move on the ice.

1. The person gives the sled a short push to the right, and stops pushing. Describe what happens to the sled a) while it is being pushed, and b) after the person stops pushing.

2. What forces are acting on the sled after the person stops pushing?

3. If the person continues to push the sled to the right instead of letting go after a short push, describe what happens to the sled.

4. Suppose the sled were traveling to the right at a constant speed, describe how the person could make the sled slow down to a stop.

III. Enjoyment Question Protocol

58

1. What do you like most about physics class?

2. What do you like least about physics class?

3. In the past, did you consider science one of your favorite subjects? If so, what did you like about science in those classes?

4. In the past did you consider science one of your least favorite subjects? If so, what did you dislike about science in those classes?

5. Is physics more or less enjoyable than other science classes you have taken? What makes it more/less enjoyable?

IV. Difficulty Question Protocol

1. What is most difficult about physics?

2. What is least difficult about physics?

3. In the past, was science a difficult class for you? If so, what made it difficult?

4. In the past, was science an easy class for you? If so, what made it easy?

5. Is physics more or less difficult than other science classes you have taken? What makes it more difficult?

59

Appendix E

Descriptive Statistics

9th Grade Non-Honors Non-Modeling

Mean Range95%

Confidence Interval

Standard Deviation

Pretest 5.6 0 – 11 5.1 – 6.1 2.1Post-test 6.3 2 – 18 5.7 – 6.9 2.8

<g> 0.03 -0.33 – 0.53

-0.005 – 0.059 0.14

0 5 10 15 20Pretest Scores

0

10

20

30

Frequency

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3Proportion per Bar

0 5 10 15 20Post-test Scores

0

10

20

30

Frequency

0.0

0.1

0.2


60

9th Grade Non-Honors Modeling

Mean Range95%

Confidence Interval

Standard Deviation


<g> 0.18 -0.28 – 0.57 0.14 – 0.22 0.17

0 5 10 15 20Pretest Score

0

5

10

15

20

Frequency

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Proportion per Bar

0 5 10 15 20Post-test Score

0

5

10

15

20

Frequency

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Proportion per Bar

61

9th Grade Honors

Mean Range95%

Confidence Interval

Standard Deviation


<g> 0.35 -0.24 – 0.94 0.31 – 0.38 0.19

0 10 20 30Pretest Score

0

10

20

30

40

Frequency

0.0

0.1

0.2


0 10 20 30Post-test Score

0

10

20

30

40

Frequency

0.0

0.1

0.2


12th Grade

62

Mean Range95%

Confidence Interval

Standard Deviation


<g> 0.23 -0.21 – 0.72 0.19 – 0.27 0.20

0 10 20 30Pretest Score

0

10

20

30

40

Frequency

0.0

0.1

0.2


0 10 20 30Post-test Score

0

10

20

30

40

Frequency

0.0

0.1

0.2


Appendix FItem Analysis, by Survey Question Number,

and Comparison to Results of Previous Studies

63

Newton’s First Law

Previous Results (Hestenes et al., 1992)Sub-Group 1 6 27 Total12th Grade% Pretest 63 26 42 44

12th Grade% Post-test 88 47 72 69

12th Grade<g> 0.41 0.28 0.52 0.45

Results of this Study

Sub-Group 1 6 27 Total

9th GradeCP

% Pretest58 17 45 39

9th GradeCP

% Post-test71 27 39 44

9th GradeCP<g>

0.31 0.12 -0.11 0.09

All Students% Pretest 60 15 45 40

All Students% Post-test 82 31 60 58

All Students<g> 0.55 0.19 0.27 0.33

Newton’s Second Law

Previous Results (Thornton and Sokoloff, 1998)Sub-Group 15 16 17 18 Total12th Grade% Pretest 19 17 18 16 18

12th Grade% Post-test 26 20 24 30 25

12th Grade 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.17 0.08

Sub-Group 1 6 27 Total12th Grade% Pretest 68 20 52 44


12th Grade<g> 0.47 0.23 0.35 0.30

9th Grade Honors

% Pretest56 12 35 34

9th GradeHonors

% Post-test88 22 70 59

9th GradeHonors

<g>0.64 0.11 0.54 0.39

9th GradeCP Model

% Pretest57 7 57 40

9th GradeCP Model% Post-test

84 50 47 50

9th GradeCP Model

<g>0.63 0.46 -0.23 0.33

64

<g>

Results of This StudySub-Group 15 16 17 18 Total12th Grade% Pretest 16 2 16 15 11

12th Grade% Post-test 19 7 20 21 16

12th Grade<g> 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.05

Sub-Group 15 16 17 18 Total9th Grade Honors

% Pretest9 1 5 9 6

9th GradeHonors

% Post-test14 11 21 13 15

9th GradeHonors

<g>0.05 0.10 0.16 0.04 0.09

9th GradeCP Model

% Pretest20 7 0 20 11


9 6 6 19 11

9th GradeCP Model

<g>-0.10 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00

9th GradeCP

% Pretest17 1 8 17 11

9th GradeCP

% Post-test18 5 6 20 12

9th GradeCP<g>

0.00 0.04 -0.02 0.04 0.01

All Students 14 2 9 14 10

65

% PretestAll Students% Post-test 16 7 16 18 14

All Students<g> 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.04

Newton’s Third Law

Previous Results

Sub-Group 19 20 21 22 23 Total12th Grade% Pretest N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

12th Grade% Post-test N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

12th Grade<g> N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Results of this StudySub-Group 19 20 21 22 23 Total12th Grade% Pretest 26 22 10 9 6 13

12th Grade% Post-test 63 58 46 48 51 52

12th Grade<g> 0.50 0.46 0.40 0.43 0.48 0.45

9th Grade Honors

% Pretest20 20 4 14 8 13

9th GradeHonors

% Post-test78 72 67 64 65 69

9th GradeHonors

<g>0.73 0.65 0.48 0.66 0.62 0.65

9th GradeCP Model

% Pretest17 23 20 10 13 17


61 31 28 47 44 43

9th GradeCP Model

<g>0.53 0.10 0.10 0.41 0.36 0.50

9th GradeCP

27 20 9 5 8 14

66

% Pretest9th Grade

CP% Post-test

28 26 14 13 16 19

9th GradeCP<g>

0.01 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.06

All Students% Pretest 23 21 9 10 8 14

All Students% Post-test 59 50 43 44 46 48

All Students<g> 0.46 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.42 0.40

Free Fall

Previous Results (Hestenes et al, 1992)Sub-Group 2 3* 14 Total12th Grade% Pretest 33 N/A 45 39

12th Grade% Post-test 67 N/A 75 71

12th Grade<g> 0.50 N/A 0.55 0.52

* Question #3 is an original question

Results of this StudySub-Group 2 3 14 Total12th Grade% Pretest 45 52 72 54


12th Grade<g> 0.56 0.35 0.07 0.40

9th Grade Honors

% Pretest40 29 45 37

9th GradeHonors

% Post-test58 63 76 66

9th GradeHonors

0.30 0.48 0.56 0.47

67

<g>9th GradeCP Model

% Pretest47 23 23 31


63 41 75 60

9th GradeCP Model

<g>0.30 0.23 0.68 0.42

Sub-Group 2 3 14 Total9th Grade

CP% Pretest

38 49 58 48

9th GradeCP

% Post-test41 46 57 48

9th GradeCP<g>

0.05 -0.06 -0.02 0.00

All Students% Pretest 47 41 55 47

All Students% Post-test 60 59 71 63

All Students<g> 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.30

Impetus

Previous Results (Thornton and Sokoloff, 1998)Sub-Group 8 9 10 24 25 26 Total12th Grade% Pretest N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10

12th Grade% Post-test N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20

12th Grade<g> N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.11

Results of This Study

68

Sub-Group 8 9 10 24 25 26 Total12th Grade% Pretest 10 6 12 9 4 8 7

12th Grade% Post-test 18 24 31 13 15 21 20

12th Grade<g> 0.09 0.19 0.22 0.04 0.11 0.14 0.14

9th Grade Honors

% Pretest7 11 15 6 4 8 8

9th GradeHonors

% Post-test28 27 28 21 17 25 24

9th GradeHonors

<g>0.23 0.18 0.15 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.17

Sub-Group 8 9 10 24 25 26 Total9th GradeCP Model

% Pretest10 10 7 10 3 10 8


3 3 13 10 3 13 9

9th GradeCP Model

<g>-0.08 -0.08 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01

9th GradeCP

% Pretest1 1 7 7 3 16 4

9th GradeCP

% Post-test4 3 13 4 4 8 6

9th GradeCP<g>

0.03 0.01 0.07 -0.03 0.01 -0.09 0.01

All Students% Pretest 7 7 11 8 4 10 8

All Students% Post-test 18 18 24 13 12 18 17

All Students<g> 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.10

Kinematics Graphs

Results of Previous Study (Beichner, 1992)

69

Sub-Group 4 5 7 11 12 13 Total12th Grade% Pretest N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A


12th Grade<g> N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Results of this StudySub-Group 4 5 7 11 12 13 Total12th Grade% Pretest 16 48 23 37 19 9 27


12th Grade<g> 0.45 0.12 0.04 0.33 -0.02 0.19 0.15

9th Grade Honors

% Pretest43 32 17 29 16 8 24

9th GradeHonors

% Post-test73 59 44 80 27 53 55

9th GradeHonors

<g>0.53 0.40 0.33 0.72 0.13 0.49 0.41

9th GradeCP Model

% Pretest60 17 17 30 10 14 21


63 28 28 56 16 47 41

9th GradeCP Model

<g>0.01 0.13 0.13 0.37 0.07 0.38 0.23

9th GradeCP

66 46 22 21 22 13 28

70

% Pretest9th Grade

CP% Post-test

73 37 19 18 10 13 28

9th GradeCP<g>

0.21 -0.14 -0.04 -0.05 -0.03 0.00 0.00

All Students% Pretest 54 38 16 28 17 10 27

All Students% Post-test 66 49 30 55 18 33 42

All Students<g> 0.26 0.17 0.17 0.37 0.01 0.26 0.21

71

APPENDIX GPretest vs. Post-test

Distribution of Answers by Percent and Comparison to Previous Studies with Available Data

Newton’s First Law

Previous Study (Hestenes et al., 1992)

12th

GradeN=612

1 Pre 1 Post 6 Pre 6 Post 27 Pre

27 Post

A 27 9 40 26 13 4B 63 88 21 15 42 72C 8 3 13 11 16 6D 1 1 26 47 10 3E 1 0 0 0 19 15

This Study12th

GradeN=105


27 Post

A 28 13 48 35 30 14B 68 84 20 18 52 69C 3 3 11 9 4 4D 1 0 20 38 6 3E 0 0 1 0 6 109th

HonorsN=104


27 Post

A 34 9 55 36 41 14B 56 88 29 38 35 68C 8 4 5 5 7 7D 1 0 12 22 2 0E 0 0 0 0 15 8

9th CP ModelN=28


27 Post

A 39 11 64 18 25 18B 57 89 14 7 57 46C 4 0 14 7 57 46D 0 0 7 54 4 4E 0 0 0 0 11 18

Bold=Correct Answer

72

Newton’s First Law(Continued)

9th CPN=76 1 Pre 1 Post 6 Pre 6 Post 27

Pre27

PostA 34 24 43 37 30 45B 59 72 21 24 41 38C 7 3 14 12 3 1D 0 0 17 26 5 5E 1 0 3 0 12 11

Bold = Correct Answer

73

Newton’s Second Law

This Study12th

GradeN=105

15 Pre

15 Post

16 Pre

16 Post

17 Pre

17 Post

18 Pre

18 Post

A 80 73 7 5 0 5 8 4B 16 19 83 79 0 4 3 4C 1 5 2 4 67 49 0 1D 0 2 2 7 4 5 1 5E 0 0 2 2 6 7 3 3F 2 0 2 0 16 20 14 21G 1 0 0 1 6 10 67 629th

Grade HonorsN=104

15 Pre

15 Post

16 Pre

16 Post

17 Pre

17 Post

18 Pre

18 Post

A 86 81 4 1 0 1 2 2B 9 14 90 86 1 0 0 0C 2 2 4 2 75 57 0 1D 0 1 0 10 5 4 2 1E 0 1 0 0 5 4 9 5F 2 0 2 0 6 20 9 14G 1 0 0 1 6 11 78 779th

Grade CP

ModelN=28

15 Pre

15 Post

16 Pre

16 Post

17 Pre

17 Post

18 Pre

18 Post

A 61 89 11 0 4 0 0 0B 18 7 75 96 4 0 11 0C 11 0 7 0 75 79 4 0D 0 4 7 4 14 0 0 0E 4 0 0 0 0 11 11 0F 0 0 0 0 0 4 18 21G 4 0 0 0 4 4 57 79


74

Newton’s Second Law (Continued)

9th

Grade CP

N=76

15 Pre

15 Post

16 Pre

16 Post

17 Pre

17 Post

18 Pre

18 Post

A 75 76 8 13 5 1 4 6B 17 18 75 76 6 3 3 1C 1 4 8 3 64 73 0 5D 1 0 1 5 5 3 4 0E 1 0 4 3 9 8 13 10F 3 1 4 1 8 6 17 20G 1 1 0 0 1 6 60 57


75

Newton’s Third Law

This Study

12th

Grade n=105

19 Pre

19 Post

20 Pre

20 Post

21 Pre

21 Post

22 Pre

22 Post

23 Pre

23 Post

A 63 27 13 6 3 10 7 2 0 5B 2 2 45 22 66 35 75 42 77 33C 3 5 4 3 4 5 3 2 8 3D 4 2 2 0 8 0 4 4 3 5E 26 63 22 57 10 46 9 47 7 50F 1 2 10 10 10 3 1 2 7 3J 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

9th

Grade Honors n=104

19 Pre

19 Post

20 Pre

20 Post

21 Pre

21 Post

22 Pre

22 Post

23 Pre

23 Post

A 65 21 12 8 10 4 4 2 5 2B 2 0 48 16 58 25 78 32 62 32C 4 1 5 0 12 0 2 1 9 0D 7 0 4 0 7 2 1 0 5 0E 20 78 20 72 4 67 14 64 8 65F 1 0 7 4 4 1 0 0 3 0J 1 0 4 0 5 0 1 0 6 0

9th

Grade CP

ModelN=28

19 Pre

19 Post

20 Pre

20 Post

21 Pre

21 Post

22 Pre

22 Post

23 Pre

23 Post

A 73 35 10 15 13 24 13 3 7 0B 0 0 40 39 37 33 60 36 57 42C 0 4 17 6 3 3 13 0 7 3D 7 0 3 3 10 3 0 9 7 0E 17 61 23 30 20 27 10 45 14 42F 3 0 7 3 13 6 3 3 7 9J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0


76

Newton’s Third Law (Continued)

9th

Grade CP

n=76

19 Pre

19 Post

20 Pre

20 Post

21 Pre

21 Post

22 Pre

22 Post

23 Pre

23 Post

A 44 56 12 15 11 11 15 6 3 8B 7 3 37 37 51 54 58 66 52 57C 9 5 4 9 9 5 9 3 10 4D 1 3 7 3 2 4 3 8 9 5E 27 28 20 25 9 14 4 13 8 16F 9 4 11 10 11 11 7 4 6 9J 1 3 7 0 7 0 1 1 10 0


77

Free Fall

Previous Study (Hestenes et al., 1992)

12th

Grade n=612

2 Pre

2 Post

3 Pre*

3 Post

*

14 Pre

14 Post

A 1 1 N/A N/A 11 7B 33 67 N/A N/A 8 4C 58 29 N/A N/A 45 75D 8 3 N/A N/A 27 11E 0 0 N/A N/A 9 3

* Question #3 is an original question

This Study12th

Grade n=105

2 Pre

2 Post

3 Pre

3 Post

14 Pre

14 Post

A 0 0 32 13 7 9B 44 76 52 69 4 6C 40 20 0 0 72 75D 6 4 11 14 15 9E 8 0 5 3 2 19th

Grade Honors n=104

2 Pre

2 Post

3 Pre

3 Post

14 Pre

14 Post

A 0 0 47 28 17 8B 40 58 29 63 7 6C 45 34 3 0 45 75D 10 5 15 7 22 9E 4 2 5 2 7 29th

Grade CP

Model n=28

2 Pre

2 Post

3 Pre

3 Post

14 Pre

14 Post

A 0 0 63 50 17 7B 47 62 23 40 13 3C 50 38 3 0 23 75D 0 0 17 3 33 13E 3 0 0 7 13 3

Bold=Correct Answer

78

Free Fall (Continued)

9th

Grade CP

N=76


14 Post

A 3 1 39 46 8 18B 38 41 49 46 9 11C 43 35 3 0 58 57D 5 15 6 7 18 8E 12 8 3 1 5 6


79

Impetus

This Study

12th

Grade n=105

8 Pre

8 Post

9 Pre

9 Post

10 Pre

10 Post

24 Pre

24 Post

25 Pre

25 Post

26 Pre

26 Post

A 10 22 6 24 12 32 9 13 4 16 8 22B 11 15 6 3 64 52 6 10 3 7 56 34C 4 2 2 4 6 5 9 17 5 0 14 9D 1 2 81 64 1 2 1 5 85 64 0 3E 5 5 2 5 2 4 8 11 2 10 5 10F 15 14 0 0 14 5 24 10 0 1 16 16G 54 40 3 0 0 1 43 34 1 2 1 69th

Grade Honors n=104

8 Pre

8 Post

9 Pre

9 Post

10 Pre

10 Post

24 Pre

24 Post

25 Pre

25 Post

26 Pre

26 Post

A 7 28 11 27 14 28 6 21 4 17 8 25B 5 13 9 5 70 55 5 14 10 7 71 59C 6 3 2 1 7 6 7 9 2 1 7 4D 1 2 67 59 1 1 0 0 78 73 1 0E 4 2 4 3 2 1 8 6 1 1 3 4F 10 10 0 0 4 6 12 11 1 0 7 8G 67 41 5 5 1 2 62 37 3 0 1 0

9th

Grade CP

Model n=28

8 Pre

8 Post

9 Pre

9 Post

10 Pre

10 Post

24 Pre

24 Post

25 Pre

25 Post

26 Pre

26 Post

A 10 3 10 3 7 12 10 10 3 3 10 13B 10 0 13 9 63 69 3 0 10 0 53 61C 3 13 0 0 23 6 17 17 7 3 17 7D 3 0 53 75 0 0 0 60 90 3 3 3E 0 6 13 0 10 0 0 3 7 0 0 0F 30 23 0 0 3 6 23 37 3 0 17 17G 43 55 10 9 0 3 47 37 10 3 0 0


80

Impetus (Continued)9th

Grade CP

n=76

8 Pre

8 Post

9 Pre

9 Post

10 Pre

10 Post

24 Pre

24 Post

25 Pre

25 Post

26 Pre

26 Post

A 1 4 1 3 6 10 7 5 3 5 5 8B 3 5 1 10 71 56 5 8 3 5 45 47C 1 1 3 3 17 22 9 14 6 5 23 18D 1 2 74 72 0 5 9 5 71 78 0 3E 11 10 9 3 1 14 12 14 8 3 3 5F 25 27 3 5 1 22 22 22 3 10 10 20G 58 50 6 1 3 35 31 35 7 1 1 0


81

Kinematics Graphs

Previous Study (Beichner, 1992)12th

Grade and

College n=895

4 Pre

4 Post

5 Pre

5 Post

7 Pre

7 Post

11 Pre

11 Post

12 Pre

12 Post

13 Pre

13 Post

A N/A 8 N/A 3 N/A 11 N/A 14 N/A 21 N/A 19B N/A 0 N/A 2 N/A 11 N/A 67 N/A 46 N/A 9C N/A 20 N/A 73 N/A 37 N/A 8 N/A 8 N/A 37D N/A 62 N/A 18 N/A 37 N/A 2 N/A 7 N/A 12E N/A 10 N/A 4 N/A 5 N/A 9 N/A 19 N/A 23

This Study12th

Grade n=105

4 Pre

4 Post

5 Pre

5 Post

7 Pre

7 Post

11 Pre

11 Post

12 Pre

12 Post

13 Pre

13 Post

A 8 23 3 4 45 29 34 25 19 17 29 19B 0 0 2 4 16 23 36 59 18 26 5 11C 16 14 46 55 24 17 4 3 4 1 9 26D 53 55 48 37 10 26 4 4 7 11 14 8E 23 8 1 1 5 5 21 9 50 45 43 369th

Grade Honors n=104

4 Pre

4 Post

5 Pre

5 Post

7 Pre

7 Post

11 Pre

11 Post

12 Pre

12 Post

13 Pre

13 Post

A 28 16 1 5 27 11 38 8 15 27 31 8B 0 0 5 6 33 25 29 79 16 32 5 9C 14 7 32 59 13 17 14 8 6 5 8 52D 43 73 59 26 16 45 4 0 5 4 15 12E 15 4 2 4 10 3 15 5 55 33 39 19

Bold=Correct Answer

82

Kinematics Graphs (Continued)

9th

Grade CP

Model n=28

4 Pre

4 Post

5 Pre

5 Post

7 Pre

7 Post

11 Pre

11 Post

12 Pre

12 Post

13 Pre

13 Post

A 20 21 3 3 27 18 37 21 10 15 17 6B 0 0 3 9 23 27 30 54 0 9 7 12C 7 9 17 27 20 15 20 18 0 9 13 45D 60 60 77 54 17 27 7 0 10 3 7 6E 10 6 0 3 13 9 7 3 80 60 53 279th

Grade CP

n=76

4 Pre

4 Post

5 Pre

5 Post

7 Pre

7 Post

11 Pre

11 Post

12 Pre

12 Post

13 Pre

13 Post

A 30 21 5 1 21 17 55 58 22 10 33 31B 3 0 1 0 49 47 21 18 23 19 7 6C 0 1 45 36 5 11 16 10 8 4 7 12D 66 73 42 44 22 19 3 9 9 9 13 18E 3 3 7 19 3 5 5 5 38 58 40 31


83

APPENDIX HHUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH PROPOSAL

An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Physics First in Maine

General Topic with Rationale:I would like to research the “physics-first” model of high school science

instruction, in which physics in a ninth-grade course. Traditionally, high school science instruction has followed a “physics-last” model, in which physics is a twelfth-grade course. There is some literature that suggests that physics-last is not the best model, such as Dr. Leon Lederman’s article in the September, 2001 of the “Physics Teacher”. The physics-first model is gaining more attention. A growing number of high schools have already switched to this model of instruction, and many more are considering it. I would like to find a population of ninth graders in Maine who are taking physics, and investigate their progress in this course.

General MethodologyMy goal is to find out what ninth graders learn compared to what twelfth

graders learn in physics. I will do this by developing an instrument to assess students’ gains in physics, and administer it to a population of ninth graders and to a population of twelfth graders that are both currently taking physics. I will then compare the results from each grade level to each other, and look for differences in normalized gains in each grade level. I will do this through the use of pre- and post- tests. I will also conduct student interviews throughout the course to find out more about the students that I can’t learn through the pre- and post-tests. I will choose students randomly and ask them questions about the concepts being taught, and about their attitudes toward the physics course they are taking. By conducting interviews, I can ask questions about the physics concepts being taught that require them to give explanations, and I can ask different follow up questions depending on the answers they give me.

PersonnelMichael O’Brien is a former high school science teacher and current

student in the Master of Science in Teaching program.

Subject RecruitmentHigh schools in the state of Maine that teach physics to ninth graders will

be asked to participate in this study. The subject population will be composed of those students at participating high schools who are taking physics.

Informed Consent

84

Students will not participate without permission of a parent or guardian. Parents or guardians must submit a signed permission slip in order for students to participate.

ConfidentialityStudent names will be removed from surveys, and replaced with id codes.

The surveys will be kept in the investigator’s locked office indefinitely. Only the investigator, and his faculty advisors will have access to the data.

Risk to SubjectsThere is no risk to the subjects beyond their time and inconvenience.

BenefitsSubjects will receive no monetary benefits.

85

Informed Consent FormMy name is Michael O’Brien. I am a graduate student at the University of Maine

in the Master of Science in Teaching program. As part of my master’s work, I am doing research on the effectiveness of teaching physics to ninth graders. Your child’s school has agreed to participate in this research project. Traditionally, physics has been taught to twelfth graders. However, more and more schools are changing the sequence of science courses, and teaching physics to ninth graders. It is important to do research in this area to help schools better make this transition.

Since your child is taking physics, I am requesting your permission to allow your child to participate in this study. Their participation is totally voluntary. They will be asked to take three surveys in total. One survey will be administered at the beginning of their physics course, and the second survey will be administered later in the year. These two surveys will be used to determine student understanding of important physics concepts at the beginning of the course, and after the concepts are taught. The third survey will be administered at the end of the course to determine the students’ attitudes toward physics.

Results of these surveys will be compiled and used to assess the effectiveness of teaching physics to ninth graders. Each test will take about 30-40 minutes to complete, and will be done during physics class time. Your child’s name will not be used in any publication. As soon as survey information is received, your child’s name will be removed and an ID code will be assigned. The survey data (without your child’s name) will become a permanent part of the research data maintained by the University of Maine. These surveys will not be used in any way to determine your child’s grade in physics class.

Additionally, I will be interviewing students periodically throughout the school year to gain insight into their attitudes toward physics. This part of the research, like the survey, is totally voluntary and will not take place without your permission. The interviews will take place during study hall times. Some interviews will be audio taped for better record keeping. These audiotapes will not include your child’s name, and will become a permanent part of the research data maintained by the University of Maine. Again, your child’s name will not be used in any publication.

Please complete and sign the attached permission slip indicating whether or not you want your child to participate. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.Sincerely, Faculty Sponsor:Michael O’Brien John Thompson5709 Bennett Hall 5709 Bennett HallUniversity of Maine University of MaineOrono, ME 04469 Orono, ME 04469(207)581-1031 (207)[email protected] [email protected]

86

mailto:[email protected]


If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact: Gayle Anderson, Assistant to the University of Maine’s Protection of Human Subjects Review Board, 5717 Corbett Hall, Room 443, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469(207)[email protected]

Sample Physics Concepts Survey Questions

Sample Attitude Survey QuestionsStudents will be asked to read and determine their level of agreement with statements like the following:A significant problem in this course is being able to memorize all the information I need to know.The main skill I get out of this course is to learn how to reason logically about the physical world.

Sample Interview QuestionsIs physics class more or less interesting than other science classes you have taken?Is physics class more or less difficult than other science classes you have taken?What do you like most about physics?What do you like least about physics?

Parental Permission Form

Permission SlipI (please circle) (do / do not) give my child, ___________________ ,permission to participate in this study by taking two surveys in physics class– one at the beginning of the course, and one at the end of the course. ____________________ (parent’s signature)

I (please circle) (do / do not) give my child, ____________________, permission to participate in this study by participating in interviews during study hall time with the researcher, Michael O’Brien._________________________

(parent’s signature)

BIOGRAPHY OF THE AUTHORMichael J. O’Brien was born in Westborough, Massachusetts on December 27, 1966. He graduated from Westborough High School in 1984, and from Lyndon State College in Vermont with a Bachelor of Science (in Meteorology) in 1990. Michael taught high school math and science in Maine for seven years. He is a candidate for the Master of Science in Teaching degree from the University of Maine in May, 2006.

87


Introduction - Modeling Instruction...

Documents

Transcript of Introduction - Modeling Instruction...