Introduction Motion probes and accompanying software allow students to simultaneously perform a...
1
Introduction Motion probes and accompanying software allow students to simultaneously perform a motion and see an accurate position vs. time graph produced on a computer screen. Recent studies noted that microcomputer-based laboratory (MBL) experiences help students understand the relationship between physical events and graphs representing those events (Barclay, 1986; Mokros and Tinker, 1987; Thornton, 1986; Tinker, 1986). This study utilized Vernier motion probes and a Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE 4.0) product called Graphing Stories, which allowed students to experience the connection between a physical event and its graphic representation. In general, literature revealed both positive correlation and no correlation between real- time graphing of a physical event and improved interpreting graph skills as compared to traditional motion graph lessons. By sparking their interest through technology the study aimed to reduce the knowledge gap, regarding graphing concepts, between algebra and non algebra students by the time they reach high school. This project had two research questions: 1. Does an MBL approach increases student understanding of graphing concepts? and 2. Does motion probe usage increases student engagement? Materials and methods This study was based on the idea that Vernier motion probes significantly increased the understanding of position vs. time graphs. The study took place in a northern California middle school (MJHS) between October 7-14, 2010. Two classes were the control group; meaning that they did not use motion probes. The other two classes were able to use the motion probes. All eighth grade classes were given a pre and post-test. The pre-test was given prior to implementing WISE 4.0 Graphing Stories. A student survey entitled Student Perceptions of Motion Probes was used to test for their opinion on student engagement. Acknowledgments Results Throughout the literature research process it was clear that the MBL approach was not proven to be a panacea for teaching the students to interpret position vs. time graphs. Most literature does, however, suggest it to have positive effects. The results of this study found similar results to most of the available literature. A review of students’ actions while utilizing the motion probes has revealed valuable insight to how they view position vs. time graphs. Similar to Lapp and Cyrus (2000), students did not understand the information the graph was presenting (Figure 3). Instead of moving back and forth along a straight line to produce a graph that matched the distance time information given, students typically walked in a path that resembled the shape of the original graph, Lapp & Cyrus (2000). The probe is not be able to detect the path of motion many students tried to follow (Figure 4). Conclusions Substituting the MBL approach for traditional motion graphing lesson appeared to have no effect on improved interpreting graphing skills according to the results of this study. This study reinforced the research, by Bernard (2003) and Murphy (2004), that both positive correlation and no correlation between real-time graphing of a physical event and improved interpreting graph skills as compared to traditional motion graph lessons. Even though no correlation were found, the researcher will continue to utilize Graphing Stories and motion probes to teaching motion graphing. Graphing Stories provided a perfect balance of inquiry-based learning, technology and interpretation of position vs. time graphs. The student survey reinforced the idea that technology in form of motion probes helps digital immigrants teach digital natives. Observing students work with motion probes allows the teacher to discover misconceptions, like iconic interpretation and slope/height confusion that might go unnoticed. Students walk out of the range of the motion probe in an attempt to “draw” the picture that they think the graph represents. Students also move slower, rather than faster, when they see a steeper slope because in reality the steeper hill the slower you walk. A teacher unaware of these misconceptions will miss the “teaching moment” when it arises. The researcher noticed on several occasions, even after they have been corrected in the past, that many students continue to view a motion graph as picture of the phenomena described. Jefferson Hartman Graduate School of Education, Touro University - California Literature cited Barclay, W.L. (1986). Graphing misconceptions and possible remedies using microcomputer-based labs. Paper presented at the Seventh National Educational Computing Conference, San Diego, CA June, 1986. Bernhard, J. (2003). Physics learning and microcomputer based laboratory (MBL): Learning effects of using MBL as a technological and as a cognitive tool, in Science Education Research in the Knowledge Based Society, D. Psillos, et al., (Eds.), Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 313-321. Lapp, Douglas A., Cyrus, Vivian Flora (2000) Using Data-Collection Devices to Enhance Students’ Understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93( 6), 504-510 Mokros, J. and Tinker, R. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children’s ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 369-383. Murphy, L.D. (2004). Using computer-based laboratories to teach graphing concepts and the derivative at the college level. Dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA Thornton, R. (1986). Tools for scientific thinking: microcomputer- based laboratories for the naive science learner. Paper presented at the Seventh National Educational Computing Conference, San Diego, CA June, 1986. Tinker, R. (1986). Modeling and MBL: software tools for science. Paper presented at the Seventh National Educational Computing Conference, San Diego, CA June, 1986. Figure 1. A picture from WISE 4.0 Graphing Stories. After the bear encounter on their hiking trip the campers needed help using a motion probe to help create a graph that will show their class just how amazing their trip was. Figure 2. A picture showing how a student uses a motion probe to produce a position vs. time graph. For further information Please contact [email protected]. More information on this and related WISE 4.0 projects can be obtained at wise4.telscenter.org This document can be found at the address below Figure 7. Most students felt that utilizing the motion probe engaged them and it was useful and advantageous for learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs. Using Motion Probes to Enhance Student Understanding of Position vs Time Graphs Figure 5. Graph of post test results. The solid line represents motion probe user and the broken line represents non motion probe user. Review of the scatter graph trend lines of post-test results (Figure 5) revealed almost no difference between the mean scores of the motion probe users and non motion probe users. This suggested that teaching with motion probes does not provide any advantage to learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs. A comparison between pre-test scores and a comparison between post test scores revealed a desirable result and undesirable result, respectively: •Pre-test scores revealed that both groups had equal knowledge of position vs. time graphs (t = 1.3256, df = 123, P = 0.18, p=.05) •Post-test scores revealed that both groups had equal knowledge of position vs. time graphs (t = 0.5107, df = 127, P = 0.51, p=.05) The researcher must accept the null hypothesis which stated that students will not have a better understanding of graphing concepts after working with Vernier motion probes and Graphing Stories than the students who worked without the motion probes. Figure 3. Distance Time Graph for Student Investigation. Reprinted from Lapp, Douglas A., Cyrus, Vivian Flora (2000) Using Data-Collection Devices to Enhance Students’ Understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93( 6) p. 504 Figure 4. Distance Time Graph for Student Investigation. Reprinted from Lapp, Douglas A., Cyrus, Vivian Flora (2000) Using Data-Collection Devices to Enhance Students’ Understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93( 6) p. 504 motion probe was useful in learning position vs. time graphs motion probes made the lesson more engaging motion probe users had an advantage in learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs yes 93% 84% 83% no 7% 16% 17% Figure 6. Student Perceptions of Motion Probes. Vernier Motion Probe posit ion tim e According to the student survey, Student Perceptions of Motion Probes: •93% (125/135) of the students felt the motion probe was useful (motion probe users) or thought it would be useful (non motion probe users) for learning about position vs. time graphs, and 7% (10/135) felt the motion probe was not useful. • 84% (97/115) of the students felt the motion probe made the lesson more engaging, and 16% (18/115) felt the motion probe made the lesson either not engaging or less engaging. •83% (94/113) of the students felt the motion probe users had an advantage over non motion probe users in learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs, and 17% (19/113) felt there was no advantage. I would like to thank University of California, Berkeley for maintaining the WISE 4.0 website and providing MJHS with access to computers and Vernier motion probes. I would like to thank Lauren Nourse and Megan Gerdts for transporting me to Benicia on a weekly basis and proof reading my document. Finally, I would like to thank Pamela Redmond for supervising the entire process. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13300305/Thesis%20Poster %20Jefferson%20Hartman%20Dec14.ppt
-
Upload
lucas-richardson -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Introduction Motion probes and accompanying software allow students to simultaneously perform a...
IntroductionMotion probes and accompanying software allow students to
simultaneously perform a motion and see an accurate position vs. time graph produced on a computer screen. Recent studies noted that microcomputer-based laboratory (MBL) experiences help students understand the relationship between physical events and graphs representing those events (Barclay, 1986; Mokros and Tinker, 1987; Thornton, 1986; Tinker, 1986). This study utilized Vernier motion probes and a Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE 4.0) product called Graphing Stories, which allowed students to experience the connection between a physical event and its graphic representation. In general, literature revealed both positive correlation and no correlation between real-time graphing of a physical event and improved interpreting graph skills as compared to traditional motion graph lessons.
By sparking their interest through technology the study aimed to reduce the knowledge gap, regarding graphing concepts, between algebra and non algebra students by the time they reach high school.
This project had two research questions: 1. Does an MBL approach increases student understanding of graphing concepts? and
2. Does motion probe usage increases student engagement?
Materials and methods
This study was based on the idea that Vernier motion probes significantly increased the understanding of position vs. time graphs. The study took place in a northern California middle school (MJHS) between October 7-14, 2010. Two classes were the control group; meaning that they did not use motion probes. The other two classes were able to use the motion probes. All eighth grade classes were given a pre and post-test. The pre-test was given prior to implementing WISE 4.0 Graphing Stories. A student survey entitled
Student Perceptions of Motion Probes was used to test for their opinion on student engagement.
Acknowledgments
Results Throughout the literature research process it was clear that the
MBL approach was not proven to be a panacea for teaching the students to interpret position vs. time graphs. Most literature does, however, suggest it to have positive effects. The results of this study found similar results to most of the available literature. A review of students’ actions while utilizing the motion probes has revealed valuable insight to how they view position vs. time graphs. Similar to Lapp and Cyrus (2000), students did not understand the information the graph was presenting (Figure 3). Instead of moving back and forth along a straight line to produce a graph that matched the distance time information given, students typically walked in a path that resembled the shape of the original graph, Lapp & Cyrus (2000). The probe is not be able to detect the path of motion many students tried to follow
(Figure 4).
ConclusionsSubstituting the MBL approach for traditional motion graphing
lesson appeared to have no effect on improved interpreting graphing skills according to the results of this study. This study reinforced the research, by Bernard (2003) and Murphy (2004), that both positive correlation and no correlation between real-time graphing of a physical event and improved interpreting graph skills as compared to traditional motion graph lessons. Even though no correlation were found, the researcher will continue to utilize Graphing Stories and motion probes to teaching motion graphing. Graphing Stories provided a perfect balance of inquiry-based learning, technology and interpretation of position vs. time graphs. The student survey reinforced the idea that technology in form of motion probes helps digital immigrants teach digital natives. Observing students work with motion probes allows the teacher to discover misconceptions, like iconic interpretation and slope/height confusion that might go unnoticed. Students walk out of the range of the motion probe in an attempt to “draw” the picture that they think the graph represents. Students also move slower, rather than faster, when they see a steeper slope because in reality the steeper hill the slower you walk. A teacher unaware of these misconceptions will miss the “teaching moment” when it arises. The researcher noticed on several occasions, even after they have been corrected in the past, that many students continue to view a motion graph as picture of the phenomena described.
Jefferson HartmanGraduate School of Education, Touro University - California
Literature citedBarclay, W.L. (1986). Graphing misconceptions and possible remedies using microcomputer-based labs.
Paper presented at the Seventh National Educational Computing Conference, San Diego, CA June, 1986.
Bernhard, J. (2003). Physics learning and microcomputer based laboratory (MBL): Learning effects of using MBL as a technological and as a cognitive tool, in Science Education Research in the Knowledge Based Society, D. Psillos, et al., (Eds.), Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 313-321.
Lapp, Douglas A., Cyrus, Vivian Flora (2000) Using Data-Collection Devices to Enhance Students’ Understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93( 6), 504-510
Mokros, J. and Tinker, R. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children’s ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 369-383.
Murphy, L.D. (2004). Using computer-based laboratories to teach graphing concepts and the derivative at the college level. Dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA
Thornton, R. (1986). Tools for scientific thinking: microcomputer-based laboratories for the naive science learner. Paper presented at the Seventh National Educational Computing Conference, San Diego, CA June, 1986.
Tinker, R. (1986). Modeling and MBL: software tools for science. Paper presented at the Seventh National Educational Computing Conference, San Diego, CA June, 1986.
Figure 1. A picture from WISE 4.0 Graphing Stories. After the bear encounter on their hiking trip the campers needed help using a motion probe to help create a graph that will show their class just how amazing their trip
was.
Figure 2. A picture showing how a student uses a motion probe to produce a position vs. time graph.
For further informationPlease contact [email protected]. More information on this and related WISE 4.0 projects can be obtained at wise4.telscenter.org
This document can be found at the address below
Figure 7. Most students felt that utilizing the motion probe engaged them and it was useful
and advantageous for learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs.
Using Motion Probes to Enhance Student Understanding of Position vs Time Graphs
Figure 5. Graph of post test results. The solid line represents motion probe user
and the broken line represents non motion probe user.
Review of the scatter graph trend lines of post-test results (Figure 5) revealed almost no difference between the mean scores of the motion probe users and non motion probe users. This suggested that teaching with motion probes does not provide any advantage to learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs.
Review of the scatter graph trend lines of post-test results (Figure 5) revealed almost no difference between the mean scores of the motion probe users and non motion probe users. This suggested that teaching with motion probes does not provide any advantage to learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs.
A comparison between pre-test scores and a comparison between post test scores revealed a desirable result and undesirable result, respectively:
•Pre-test scores revealed that both groups had equal knowledge of position vs. time graphs (t = 1.3256, df = 123, P = 0.18, p=.05)•Post-test scores revealed that both groups had equal knowledge of position vs. time graphs (t = 0.5107, df = 127, P = 0.51, p=.05)
The researcher must accept the null hypothesis which stated that students will not have a better understanding of graphing concepts after working with Vernier motion probes and Graphing Stories than the students who
worked without the motion probes.
A comparison between pre-test scores and a comparison between post test scores revealed a desirable result and undesirable result, respectively:
•Pre-test scores revealed that both groups had equal knowledge of position vs. time graphs (t = 1.3256, df = 123, P = 0.18, p=.05)•Post-test scores revealed that both groups had equal knowledge of position vs. time graphs (t = 0.5107, df = 127, P = 0.51, p=.05)
The researcher must accept the null hypothesis which stated that students will not have a better understanding of graphing concepts after working with Vernier motion probes and Graphing Stories than the students who
worked without the motion probes.
Figure 3. Distance Time Graph for Student Investigation. Reprinted from Lapp, Douglas A., Cyrus, Vivian Flora (2000) Using Data-Collection Devices to Enhance Students’ Understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93( 6) p. 504
Figure 3. Distance Time Graph for Student Investigation. Reprinted from Lapp, Douglas A., Cyrus, Vivian Flora (2000) Using Data-Collection Devices to Enhance Students’ Understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93( 6) p. 504
Figure 4. Distance Time Graph for Student Investigation. Reprinted from Lapp, Douglas A., Cyrus, Vivian Flora (2000) Using Data-Collection Devices to Enhance Students’ Understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93( 6) p. 504
Figure 4. Distance Time Graph for Student Investigation. Reprinted from Lapp, Douglas A., Cyrus, Vivian Flora (2000) Using Data-Collection Devices to Enhance Students’ Understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93( 6) p. 504
motion probe was useful in learning position vs. time
graphs
motion probes made the
lesson more engaging
motion probe users had an advantage in
learning how to interpret position vs.
time graphs
yes 93% 84% 83%
no 7% 16% 17%
Figure 6. Student Perceptions of Motion Probes. Figure 6. Student Perceptions of Motion Probes.
Vernier Motion ProbeVernier Motion Probe
positionposition
timetime
According to the student survey, Student Perceptions of Motion Probes:
•93% (125/135) of the students felt the motion probe was useful (motion probe users) or thought it would be useful (non motion probe users) for learning about position vs. time graphs, and 7% (10/135) felt the motion probe was not useful.• 84% (97/115) of the students felt the motion probe made the lesson more engaging, and 16% (18/115) felt the motion probe made the lesson either not engaging or less engaging. •83% (94/113) of the students felt the motion probe users had an advantage over non motion probe users in learning how to interpret position vs. time
graphs, and 17% (19/113) felt there was no advantage.
According to the student survey, Student Perceptions of Motion Probes:
•93% (125/135) of the students felt the motion probe was useful (motion probe users) or thought it would be useful (non motion probe users) for learning about position vs. time graphs, and 7% (10/135) felt the motion probe was not useful.• 84% (97/115) of the students felt the motion probe made the lesson more engaging, and 16% (18/115) felt the motion probe made the lesson either not engaging or less engaging. •83% (94/113) of the students felt the motion probe users had an advantage over non motion probe users in learning how to interpret position vs. time
graphs, and 17% (19/113) felt there was no advantage.
I would like to thank University of California, Berkeley for maintaining the WISE 4.0 website and providing MJHS with access to computers and Vernier motion probes. I would like to thank Lauren Nourse and Megan Gerdts for transporting me to Benicia on a weekly basis and proof reading my document. Finally, I would like to thank Pamela Redmond for supervising the entire process.
I would like to thank University of California, Berkeley for maintaining the WISE 4.0 website and providing MJHS with access to computers and Vernier motion probes. I would like to thank Lauren Nourse and Megan Gerdts for transporting me to Benicia on a weekly basis and proof reading my document. Finally, I would like to thank Pamela Redmond for supervising the entire process.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13300305/Thesis%20Poster%20Jefferson%20Hartman%20Dec14.ppthttp://dl.dropbox.com/u/13300305/Thesis%20Poster%20Jefferson%20Hartman%20Dec14.ppt
