Using Motion Probes to Enhance Students’ Understanding of Position vs. Time

Graphs

A Project Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Education

TOURO UNIVERSITY – CALIFORNIA

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of

MASTERS OF ARTS

in

EDUCATION

With Emphasis in

Educational Technology

By

Jefferson Hartman

December 2010

Using Motion Probes to Enhance Students’ Understanding of Position vs. Time Graphs

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the

MASTERS OF ARTS DEGREE

In

EDUCATION

BY

Jefferson Hartman

TOURO UNIVERSITY – CALIFORNIA

December 2010

Under the guidance and approval of the committee and approval by all the members, this study has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree.

Approved:

______________________________ ___________________Pamela A. Redmond, Ed.D. Date

______________________________ ___________________Jim O’Connor, Ph.D, Dean Date

TOURO UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIAGraduate School of Education

Author Release

Name: Jefferson Hartman

The Touro University Graduate School of Education has permission to use my MA thesis or field project as an example of acceptable work. This permission includes the right to duplicate the manuscript as well a permits the document to be checked out from the College Library or School website.

Signature: ___________________________________

Date: _______________________________________

Motion probes and accompanied software allow students to simultaneously

perform a motion and see an accurate position vs. time graph produced on a computer

screen. Studies note that microcomputer-based laboratory (MBL) experiences are

helping students understand the relationships between physical events and graphs

representing those events (Barclay, 1986; Mokros and Tinker, 1987; Thornton, 1986;

Tinker, 1986). This study utilized Vernier motion probes and a WISE 4.0 project called

Graphing Stories, which allowed students to experience the connection between a

physical event and its graphic representation. As a basis for this study, the researcher

agreed with Kozhevnikov and Thornton (2006) when they suggested that the strong

emphasis MBL curricula place on visual/spatial representations has the potential not only

to facilitate students’ understanding of physics concepts, but also to enhance their spatial

visualization skills.

i

Table of Contents

List of Figures

iii

List of Tables

iv

CHAPTER I

1

Introduction

1

Statement of the Problem

2

Background and Need

3

Purpose of the Study

4

Research Questions

5

Definition of Terms

5

Summary

6

CHAPTER II

7

ii

Introduction

7

Theoretical Rational

10

Inquiry-based learning

11

Interpreting Graphs

15

Probeware

20

Summary

28

CHAPTER III

30

Introduction

30

Background and Development of the Study

....................................................................................................................................

32

Components of the Study

33

Methodology

35

iii

Results

37

Analysis

42

Summary

44

CHAPTER IV

46

Introduction

46

Study Outcomes

47

Proposed Audience, Procedures and Implementation Timeline

48

Evaluation of the Study

51

Summary

51

REFERENCES

52

APPENDIX A

58

iv

APPENDIX B

61

v

List of Figures

Figure 1: Line of best fit for land speed records

................................................................................................................................................

18............................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................

Figure 2: A distance versus time graph for two cars

................................................................................................................................................

21

Figure 3: The wrong way to represent a walk to and from a specific location

................................................................................................................................................

23

Figure 4: The right way to represent a walk to and from a specific location

................................................................................................................................................

23

Figure 5: Frequency distribution of the pre-test scores

................................................................................................................................................

39

Figure 6: Frequency distribution of the post-test scores

................................................................................................................................................

39

Figure 7: Distance time graph for student investigation

................................................................................................................................................

44

vi

Figure 8: Path of walker

................................................................................................................................................

44

List of Tables

Table 1: Frequency Distribution of Responses to the Questions Regarding the Usefulness of Motion Probes.................................................................................................................................40

Table 2: Frequency Distribution of Responses to the Questions Regarding Motion Probes and Student Engagement.................................................................................................................................41

vii

Table 3: Frequency Distribution of Responses to the Questions Regarding the Advantage of a Motion Probe.................................................................................................................................41

Chapter I

Middle school teachers always search for new, exciting ways to engage their

adolescent audience. International comparison research showed that although U.S.

fourth-grade students compare favorably, eighth-grade students fall behind their foreign

peers, particularly in their mastery of complex, conceptual mathematics, a cause for

concern about the preparation of students for careers in science (Roschelle et al., 2007).

Producing and interpreting position vs. time graphs is particularly difficult because they

have little to no prior knowledge on the subject. Nicolaou, Nicolaidou, Zacharias, &

Constantinou (2007) claimed that despite the rhetoric that is promoted in many

educational systems, the reality is that most science teachers routinely fail to help

students achieve a better understanding of graphs at the elementary school level.

There is also a knowledge gap that has developed between the students who are in

algebra and students who are not. Algebra students have experience with coordinates,

slope, rate calculations and linear functions. By the time motion lessons begin many

students have had zero experience with linear graphs which make it nearly impossible for

them to interpret. When introducing motion a considerable amount of time is spent with

rate and speed calculations. Algebra students excel and the others struggle. Without

understanding rate and proportionality, students cannot master key topics and

representations in high school science, such as laws (e.g., F= ma, F = -kx), graphs (e.g.,

of linear and piecewise linear functions), and tables (Roschelle et al., 2007). By sparking

their interest with technology, the knowledge gap between students regarding graphing

concepts should be reduced by the time they reach high school.

Statement of the Problem

After teaching for several years, the researcher came to the conclusion that in

order for students to understand graphing concepts and combat graphing misconceptions,

they must start with a firm foundation, practice and be assessed often. Both the degree of

understanding and the retention of this knowledge seemed to diminish only after a short

period of time when taught with traditional paper/pencil techniques. The researcher

chose to concentrate on utilizing motion probes with simultaneous graphing via computer

software because it is anticipated that this hands-on approach will provide a solid

foundation which in turn will reinforce knowledge retention. Sokoloff, Laws and

Thornton (2007) stated that students can discover motion concepts for themselves by

walking in front of an ultrasonic motion sensor while the software displays position,

velocity and/or acceleration in real time. Simply using this MBL type approach may not

be enough. Preliminary evidence showed that while the use of the MBL tools to do

traditional physics experiments may increase the students’ interest, such activities do not

necessarily improve student understanding of fundamental physics concepts (Thornton &

Sokoloff, 1990). Lapp and Cyrus (2000) warned that although the literature suggested

benefits from using MBL technology, we must also consider problems that arise if we do

not pay attention to how the technology is implemented. Bryan (2006) stated a general

“rule of thumb” is that technology should be used in the teaching and learning of science

and mathematics when it allows one to perform investigations that either would not be

possible or would not be as effective without its use.

2

Background and Need

Much of the research suggested an improvement in student understanding of

graphing using the MBL approach; yet warn how the technique is implemented. The

MBL approach refers to any technique that connects a physical event to immediate

graphic representation. Some studies indicated that without proper precautions,

technology can become an obstacle to understanding (Bohren, 1988; Lapp, 1997;

Nachmias and Linn, 1987). Beichner compared how a motion reanimation (video) with

“real” motion and simultaneous graphing. Beichner (1990) stated that Brasell (1987) and

others have demonstrated the superiority of microcomputer-based labs, this may indicate

that visual juxtaposition is not the relevant variable producing the educational impact of

the real-time MBL. Bernard (2003) reluctantly suggested that technology leads to better

learning. Bernard advocated that it is important to focus on the cognitive aspects as well

as the technical aspects. Although many researchers could not find conclusive evidence

to say that MBL techniques improved student understanding of graphing concepts, the

researcher believed that most would agree that it does. This study attempted to show that

the MBL approach works.

This study will also bring to light the general need for students to utilize

developing technologies which in turn prepares them for future uncreated jobs.

Roschelle et al. (2000) stated that schools today face ever-increasing demands in their

attempts to ensure that students are well equipped to enter the workforce and navigate a

complex world. Roschelle et al. indicated that computer technology can help support

learning, and that it is especially useful in developing the higher-order skills of critical

thinking, analysis, and scientific inquiry.

3

Purpose of the Study

Luckily, students are somewhat enthusiastic about technology. This energy can

be harnessed by utilizing the technology of WISE 4.0 (Web Inquiry Based Environment)

and the Vernier motion probe in order to test if an MBL approach increased student

understanding of position vs. time graphs. The researcher is responsible for teaching

approximately 160 eighth grade students force and motion. WISE is the common

variable in a partnership between a public middle school in Northern California (MJHS)

and UC Berkeley. UC Berkeley has provided software, Vernier probes, Macintosh

computers and support with WISE 4.0. This unique opportunity to coordinate with

researchers from UC Berkeley is one reason this study was chosen. The other reason was

to prove that Graphing Stories is a valuable learning tool. Graphing Stories embedded

this MBL approach without making it the soul purpose of the project. Students are

immersed in a virtual camping trip that involves encountering a bear on a hiking trip.

Graphing Stories seamlessly supports the Vernier motion probe and software allowing

students to physically walk and simultaneously graph the approximate motion of the hike.

An added bonus is that students can instantly share their graph with other students who

are working on the project at the same time.

This study tested the hypothesis that students will have a better understanding of

graphing concepts after working with Vernier motion probes and Graphing Stories than

the students who work without the motion probes. Both groups took a pre-test and a

post-test. The researcher statistically compared the difference in the results between the

pre and post-tests of the same group and the difference in results between the post-tests of

4

each group. The data collection portion of the project took approximately 7 school days

to complete.

Research Questions

This project had two main research questions:

Does an MBL approach increases student understanding of graphing concepts?

Does motion probe usage increases student engagement?

Along with the main research questions came several secondary goals which included:

utilize the unique opportunity of the partnership between UC Berkeley and MJHS,

reinforce the idea that the project Graphing Stories is an inquiry based learning tool and

utilize students’ enthusiasm for technology.

The hypothesis as stated in the purpose of the project section above addressed the

research question regarding how the MBL approach increases students understanding of

graphing concepts. A student survey named Student Perception on Use of Motion Probes

helped to answer the research question regarding how motion probes increase student

engagement.

Definition of Terms

Graphing stories: a WISE 4.0 project that helps students understand that every graph has

a story to tell (WISE – Web-based Inquiry Science Environment, 1998-2010).

MBL: microcomputer-based laboratory. The microcomputer-based laboratory utilizes a

computer, a data collection interface, electronic probes, and graphing software, allowing

students to collect, graph, and analyze data in real-time (Tinker, 1986).

5

Vernier motion probes: a motion detector that ultrasonically measures distance to the

closest object and creates real-time motion graphs of position, velocity and acceleration

(Vernier Software and Technology, n.d.).

WISE: Web-based Inquiry Science Environment is a free online science learning

environment supported by the National Science Foundation (WISE – Web-based Inquiry

Science Environment, 1998-2010).

Summary

The MBL approach has a positive effect on students’ understanding of graphing

concepts if used correctly. According the NSTA (1999), “Microcomputer Based

Laboratory Devices (MBL's) should be used to permit students to collect and analyze

data as scientists do, and perform observations over long periods of time enabling

experiments that otherwise would be impractical”. It was hoped that students who use

Vernier motion probes in connection with Graphing Stories will show a deeper

understanding of graphic concepts than students who did not use the motion probes. This

study reinforced the unique relationship between UC Berkeley and MJHS. The use of

technology will lessen the knowledge gap between algebra and non-algebra students and

their graphing skills. In general, research suggested that technology is not a panacea and

needs to be accompanied by thoughtful planning and meaningful purpose.

6

Chapter II

A graph depicting a physical event allows a glimpse of trends which cannot be

easily recognized in a table of the same data (Beichner, 1994). After teaching science to

eighth graders for several years most teachers will notice that many students consistently

have trouble with graphing, specifically line graphs. Most students understand the

concept of the x and y axis and plotting points, but do not make sense of what the line

they created actually means. Many students struggle with interpreting graphs for several

reasons. The first reason is insufficient exposure to graphing type tasks throughout their

earlier education. The California State Science Standards require that 8th grade students

understand the concept of slope. This is a mathematics standard that should be addressed

before students reach 8th grade, however, in practice, most students are not taught slope

until they take algebra either in 8th or 9th grade. Some students never take algebra at all.

This is a significant issue considering that there is a direct relationship between

understanding the concept of slope and interpreting graphs. Students often lack the

understanding of the vocabulary needed to describe the meaning of a graph. Terms like

direct relationship, inverse relationship, horizontal and vertical all seem to be

straightforward words, but continue to be absent from students’ repertoire. A person who

creates and interprets graphs frequently will become comfortable using the appropriate

descriptive terminology. A student with little experience graphing must put forth

significant effort in simply translating the vocabulary. The last reason students struggle

with graphing is that they are not accustomed to thinking in an abstract way. The most

important cognitive changes during early adolescence relate to the increasing ability of

children to think abstractly, consider the hypothetical as well as the real, consider

7

multiple dimensions of a problem at the same time, and reflect on themselves and on

complicated problems (Keating, 1990). Eighth grade students are 12-13 years old; they

have not necessarily developed this thinking process. Interpreting graphs requires the

observer to look at a pattern of marks and make generalizations. Again, Algebra is the

first time many students are required to think in this manner.

Adolescents taught in middle school are perfect candidates for inquiry-based

learning projects because of their natural curiosity. According to the National Institutes

of Health (2005), inquiry-based instruction offers an opportunity to engage student

interest in scientific investigation, sharpen critical-thinking skills, distinguish science

from pseudoscience, increase awareness of the importance of basic research, and

humanize the image of scientists. As a student acquiring new knowledge, one might

wonder if they will ever use the information they are learning at a particular time. For

example, how is learning the foot structure of a shore bird of Humboldt County going to

help in the future? This is a learning process that requires one to look for patterns and

transfer context from one situation into another. Learning certain facts through lab and

field work directly helps with upcoming assessments. But perhaps even more important,

it creates a conceptual framework that is transferable to other fields of science. Many

students have limited experiences in their life which, in turn, limits the prior knowledge

they bring to the classroom. Novice science thinkers seek answers that reflect their

everyday life which may not resemble valid science concepts. Involving students in a

science project or experiment forces them to learn the basic vocabulary and concepts but

also immerses them in the process of asking questions, making hypotheses, finding

evidence, supporting claims, and interpreting and analyzing results. After students

8

develop these inquiry skills they will be better able to solve problems based on empirical

evidence and avoid misconceptions.

Misconceptions often arise when students are asked to interpret graphs. Students

have trouble extracting information from graphs because everyday experiences have not

prepared them to conceptualize. New technology called probeware (sometimes

analogous to MBL) helps students make connections between real experiences and data

presented in graphical form. According to the Concord Consortium (n.d.), probeware

refers to educational applications of probes, interfaces and software used for real-time

data acquisition, display, and analysis with a computer or calculator. By using the MBL

approach, as explained in chapter 1, the drudgery of producing graphs by hand are

virtually eliminated.

When researchers (Bernard, 2003; Lapp and Cyrus, 2000; Thornton and Sokoloff,

1990) compared real-time graphing of a physical event and traditional motion graphing

lessons, two findings emerged. There was some proof of a positive correlation between

real-time graphing and improved comprehension of graphing concepts as compared to

traditional methods of teaching motion graphing (Thornton & Sokoloff, 1990). However,

there was also some evidence suggesting that there was no correlation between the real-

time graphing teaching method and improved comprehension of graphing concepts

(Bernard, 2003). This evidence lends well to future research that answers the question of

which teaching method equips the students with the best skills to interpret the

relationship between physical events and the graphs that represent them.

9

Theoretical Rational

The “real” world manifests itself through a combination of all the events a person

has experienced. This idea is explained by Piaget’s (1980) learning theory called

constructivism. According to Piaget, “fifty years of experience taught us that knowledge

does not result from a mere recording of observations without a structuring activity on the

part of the subject” (p. 23). This statement gives reason for a teacher to design their

curriculum in a way that guides the students into a cognitive process of discovery through

experimentation. With the teacher acting as a facilitator, students are encouraged to

make their own inferences and conclusions with the use of their prior knowledge. For

Piaget (1952, 1969) the development of human intellect proceeds through adaptation and

organization. Adaptation is a process of assimilation and accommodation, where, on the

one hand, external events are assimilated into thoughts and, on the other, new and

unusual mental structures are accommodated into the mental environment (Boudourides,

2003). Assimilation refers to the integration of new knowledge into what is already

known. Accommodation refers to making room for new knowledge without a significant

change. There is a need for accommodation when current experience cannot be

assimilated into existing schema (Piaget, 1977). It is a teacher’s job to make sure

students do not fill the gaps of knowledge with incorrect thoughts while learning from a

“self-discovery” lesson. In order to prevent students from developing misconceptions the

teacher must make sure students do not miss or misunderstand significant events or attach

importance to information that is not meaningful to the study in progress.

This idea of experimentation can be thought of as inquiry-based learning.

Inquiry-based learning is a pedagogy of constructivism. Students develop a genuine idea

10

of the “real” world when they make discoveries on their own rather than have a teacher

lecture to them. According to Kubieck (2005), inquiry-based learning, when authentic,

complements the constructivist learning environment because it allows the individual

student to tailor their own learning process.

Inquiry-based Learning

Inquiry is probably the most chosen word to describe the goal of science.

Inquiry- based learning is often characterized by the types of procedures used.

Chiappeta (1997) described strategies and techniques that have been used successfully by

science teachers: asking questions, science process skills, discrepant events, inductive

and deductive activites, information gathering and problem solving. By asking

meaningful questions, teachers cause students to think critically and ask their own

questions. Processing skills like observing, classifying, measuring, inferring, predicting,

and hypothesizing help a student construct knowledge and communicate information.

Chiappeta stated that a discrepant event puzzles students, causing them to wonder why

the event occurred as it did. Piaget (1971) reinforced the idea by stating that puzzlement

can stimulate students to engage in reasoning and the desire to find out. In inductive

activities, students discover a concept by first encountering its attributes and naming it

later. The exact opposite is a deductive activity which first describes a concept followed

by supportive examples. Much of the prior knowledge needed to ask those important

inquiry questions comes from gathering information through research. Presenting a

teenager with a problem solving activity engages them in authetic investigation.

Like Chiappeta (1997), Colburn (2000) agreed that inquiry-based learning is a

widely accepted idea in the world of science education. Colburn reported his own

11

definition of inquiry-based instruction as “the creation of a classroom where students are

engaged in essentially open-ended, students centered, hands-on activites” (p. 42).

Colburn explained that even though inquiry is important, many teachers are not using it.

He also gave ideas of what inquiry looked like in the classroom. Some reasons why

teachers do not use inquiry include: unclear on the meaning of inquiry, inquiry only

works with high achievers, inadequate preparation and difficulty managing. Colburn and

Chiappeta identified similar inquiry-based instruction approaches:

Structured inquiry provides students with an investigation without divulging

the expected outcome.

Guided inquiry is similar to structured inquiry except students come up with

their own procedure for solving the problem.

Open inquiry takes it one step farther and asks students to come up with their

own question. Learning cycle is similar to deductive activity explained above.

Inquiry-based learning is suitable for all levels of students because inquiry tends

to be more successful with concepts that are “easier”. Colburn (2000) acknowledged that

to help all middle level students benefit from inquiry-based intructions, the science

education research community recommended:

orienting activites toward concrete, observable concepts

centering activites around questions that students can answer directly via

investigation

emphasizing activites using materials and situation familiar to students

chooing activites suited to students’ skills and knowledge to ensure success

12

In terms of being prepared and managing for inquiry-based instruction, teachers must

trust the process, take their time and allow students to adjust to open-ended activities.

The proposed study is a structured inquiry activity where students are faced with learning

the abstract concept of graphing by doing simple activites like moving forward and

backwards in front of a motion probe while observing the corresponding graph being

created.

Colburn (2000) as well as Huber and Moore (2001) explained how to develop

hands-on activities into inquiry-based lessons. Huber and Moore contended that the

strategies involve (a) discrepant events to engage students in direct inquiry; (b) teacher-

supported brainstroming activites to facilitate students in planning investigations; (c)

effective written job performance aids to provide structure and support; (d) requirements

that students provide a product of their research, which usually includes a class

presentation and a graph; and (e) class discussion and writing activites to facilitate

students in reflecting on their activites and learning. Chiappeta (1997) had the similar

idea of utilizing discrepant events, like balancing a ping pong ball above a blow drier, to

prompt student puzzlement and questioning. Huber and Moore suggested using these

strategies because the activites presented in textbooks are step by step instructions, which

is not characteristic of true inquiry-based learning.

All of the literature above supported the idea that inquiry is widely accepted in the

science community, but also suggested that it is not being used effectively. It outlined

what inquiry-based lessons should look like and gave strategies on how to utilize the

learning theory. Deters (2005) reported on how many high school chemistry teachers

conduct inquiry based labs, “Of the 571 responses to the online survey from high school

13

chemistry teachers all over the U.S., 45 percent indicated that they did not use inquiry

labs in their classrooms” (p. 1178). This seemed to be a low number even though the

National Science Standards include inquiry standards. Teachers gave reasons for not

using inquiry: loss of control, safety issues, used more class time, fear of abetting student

misconceptions, spent more time grading labs and students have many complaints.

Deters reported on students opinions regarding inquiry-based labs by collecting

comments from student portfolios from an private urban high school. The students

concerns included: more effort and thinking are required and the fear of being in control.

The positive student aspects included: develop mastery of material, learn the scientific

process, learn chemistry concepts, improves ability to correct or explain mistakes,

increased communication skills, learn procedural organization and logic, and better

performance on non-inquiry labs. Since planning and conducting inquiry-based labs

requires a significant effort, conducting them can be overwhelming. Deters suggested

that if students perform even a few inquiry-based labs each year throughout their middle

school and high school careers, by graduation they will be more confident, critical-

thinking people who are unafraid of “doing science”. As part of the proposed study,

students were required to reflect on the graphing activity by reporting on their perceived

success.

Computer-supported learning environments make it easier for students to propose

their own research focus, produce their own data, and continue their inquiry as new

questions arise, thus replicating scientific inquiry more realistically (Kubieck, 2005).

WISE 4.0 Graphing Stories is a computer-supported learning environment that works

with a motion probe. Students produced their own data by moving in front of the device.

14

This data was simultaneously represented in a graphic format. Students were asked to

replicate the motion by changing the scale of their movements. Along with producing a

graph of their motion they are also asked to match their motion to a given graph. Some

graphs were impossible to create, which in turn promotes direct inquiry. The goal of the

Graphing Stories program was to teach students how to interpret graphs utilizing an

inquiry-based strategy in computer-supported environment.

Interpreting Graphs

Drawing and interpreting graphs is a crucial skill in understanding many topics in

science, especially physics. McDermott, Rosenquist and van Zee (1987) stated that to be

able to apply the powerful tool of graphical analysis to science, students must know how

to interpret graphs in terms of the subject matter represented. The researchers were

convinced that many graphing problems were not necessarily caused by poor mathematic

skills. Because most of students in the study had no trouble plotting points and

computing slopes, other factors must be responsible. In order to describe these factors

contributing to student difficulty with graph the researchers supplied questions to

university and high school students over a several year period. The students from

University of Washington were in algebra or calculus-based physics courses. The high

school students were in either physics or physical science classes. The researchers

identified several specific difficulties from each these categories: difficulty in connecting

graphs to physical concepts and difficulty connecting graphs to the real world. When

students tried to connect graphs to physical concepts they had difficulty with:

1. discriminating between slope and height of a graph

2. interpreting changes in height and changes in slope

15

3. relating one graph to another

4. matching narrative information with relevant features of the graph

5. interpreting the area under a graph

When students tried to connect the graph to the real world they had difficulty with:

1. representing continuous motion by a continuous line

2. separating the shape of a graph from the path of the motion

3. representing a negative velocity on a velocity vs. time graph

4. representing constant acceleration on an acceleration vs. time graph

5. distinguishing among types of motion graphs

The three difficulties of particular interest to the proposed study included matching

narrative information with relevant features of a graph, interpreting changes in height and

changes in slope and representing continuous motion by a continuous line. One of the

tasks in Graphing Stories was to write a story to match a graph and vice a versa. When

utilizing the Vernier motion probes, students actually saw how their continuous motion

was represented by a continuous line on the graph. Students also noticed that when they

moved faster the slope was steeper and when they moved slower the slope was not as

steep. McDermott et al. stated that it has been our experience that literacy in graphical

representation often does not develop spontaneously and that intervention in the form of

direct instruction is needed.

Research done by Beichner (1994) showed many similarities to other studies. He

identified a consistent set of difficulties students faced when interpreting graphs:

misinterpreting graphs as pictures, slope/height confusion, difficulty finding slopes of

lines not passing through the origin and interpreting the area under the graph. He

16

analyzed data from 895 high school and college students. The goal of the study was to

uncover kinematics graph problems and propose a test used as a diagnostic tool for

evaluation of instruction. Implications from the study included:

1. Teachers need to be aware of the graphing problems.

2. Students need to understand graphs before they are used as a language of

instruction.

3. Teachers must choose their words carefully.

4. Teachers should give students a large variety of motion situations for careful,

graphical examination and explanation.

Beichner stated that students must be given the opportunity to consider their own ideas

about kinematics graphs and must be encouraged to help modify those ideas when

necessary. Instruction that asks students to predict graph shapes, collect the relevant data

and then compare results to predictions appears to be especially suited to promoting

conceptual change (Dykastra, 1992). Incorporating the MBL approach and real-time data

collection seemed key to the focus of this study.

Many eighth grade students have not been exposed to the idea of slope prior to

being expected to produce and interpret motion graphs. Even though algebra classes

require students to take part in problems calculating slope, students do not understand the

idea of slope as rate of change. Crawford and Scott (2000) found that by observing tables

and graphs, students learn to describe and extend patterns, create equations with variables

to represent patterns, and make predictions on the basis of these patterns. In order to help

students conceptualize slope as a rate of change, Crawford and Scott suggested three

modes of learning: visualization, verbalization, and symbolization. Instead of calculating

17

slope from an equation, they stated it was useful to start with a graph then produce a table

of data and an equation that matched the rate of change. Once the students understood

that slope describes the rate of change it was particularly useful to have students compare

graphs and slopes for two rates side by side. Using information from media that students

were exposed to, like news from the internet, as an application for teaching slope can

increase interest and connect it to the real world. Often times collected data does not fit

perfectly onto one line and requires a scatter plot to make sense of it. For example, even

seemingly random data like that shown in Figure 1 can be described through slope.

Figure 1. Line of best fit for land speed records. Reprinted from Making Sense of Slope by A.R Crawford & W.E Scott (2000). The Mathematics Teacher, 93, p. 117.

Crawford and Scott (2000) stated that from their own experiences teaching

algebra, they observed many students calculate slopes and write equations for a line

without understanding the concept of slope. They asserted that when assessing student

understanding of slope, it was imperative for assessments to ask students to provide

18

rationale through written or oral responses. This rationale provided rich information

regarding a student’s understanding of slope.

Hale (2000) reinforced ideas from McDermott et al. (1987) and Crawford and

Scott (2000) when she stated students have trouble with motion graphs even when they

understand the mathematical concepts. The author restated the student graph difficulties

stated in McDermott et al. Hale’s goal was to report possible underlying causes and

provide promising remedies to these problems. When discriminating between the slope

and the height of a graph, students often make the “simple mistake” of misreading the

axes. A discussion of this situation may reveal that, “a student’s principles may be

reasonable, but they may not generalize to the given situation” (Hale, 2000), p. 415.

When comparing two types of graphs, like a position graph and a velocity graph, students

often expect them to look similar. Personal experience has shaped the way students

understand distance, velocity and acceleration. Hale argued that we cannot simply ask

students to abandon their concepts and replace them with ours. Monk (1994) offered the

following remedies:

an emphasis on conceptual as opposed to procedural learning-on understanding

the ideas as opposed to knowing how to do the procedures

an emphasis on relating the mathematical ideas to real situations

classroom formats that encourage discussion, especially among students, in

contrast to lecturing and telling by the teacher

Along with these proposed solutions, Hale suggested that teachers put emphasis on using

the physical activity involved with an MBL setting. In order for students to repair their

19

misconceptions they must be put in a learning situation, like in the proposed study, where

they are confronted by them.

Probeware

In order to become literate in science students must be able to observe the world

around them. This starts when an infant picks up an object and places it in their mouth.

They are curious and use their mouth, fingers and toes to answer questions. In the

beginning of the school year, a teacher may ask students, “How do you observe the world

around you?” Most students correctly respond with, “ We use our senses.” The sense of

touch is great way for determining hot and cold but no so good for determining the exact

temperature. We can extend our sense of touch with a thermometer. A themometer

probe is a thermometer that is connected to a computer and can make hundreds of

accurate reading in a short amount of time. Probeware refers to to any computer aided

device that accurately takes data (temperature, pH, motion, light intensity, etc.); it often

simulanteously creates a graphical representation. Several studies investigated how

probeware can enhance students abitliy to interpret graphs.

Creating graphs and working with mathematical functions is often the first time

students work with a symbolic system that represents data. Pullano (2005) pointed out

several difficulties associated with graphical representations of functions. “Slope/height

confusion” and “iconic interpretation” are common misconceptions. When asked in a

distance vs. time graph, students will often choose a lesser slope to represent a car going

faster. Is the car B traveling faster on less slope because it looks like a hill with less

incline? Students exhibit “iconic interpretation” which means viewing a graph literally

20

rather than as a representation of data. A positive slope followed by a negative slope

looks like a mountain rather that an object moving forward and backward.

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 2 4 6 8 10

time

dis

tan

ce

Car A

Car B

Figure 2. A distance versus time raph for two cars. Adapted from Using Probeware to Improve Students' Graph Interpretation Abilities by F. Pullano (2005). School Science and Mathematics, 105(7).

In Pullano (2005), the goal of the study was to detemine the effects a probe-based

instructional intervention had on eighth-grade students abilities to accurately interpret

contextual graph functions locally, globally, quantitatively and qualitatively. Ultrasonic

motion detectors, themometers, air pressure sensors and light intensity sensors were used

by small groups to collect physical phenomena. The results follow:

1. Students developed a formal understanding of slope which is the rate of change of

one variable with respect to another.

2. By incorporating appropriate language and ideas learned from previous graphing

activities, students used prior knowledge to correctly interpret graphs of

unfamiliar contexts.

21

3. The iconic interpretation exhibited in pre-activity interview was absent from final

interviews. (page 374)

Pullano’s study had a very clear explanation of two graphing misconceptions, which

shaped the proposed research design of this study.

Many people have difficulty with math because they do not see a way to connect

it to their life. In a dissertation by Murphy (2004), she stated that the goal of her study

was to help a large number of students to understand the concepts of calculus in a way

that they could use effectively to address real problems. She first identfied two common

misconceptions: graph as pictures or “GAP” and slope/height confusion. In GAP,

students think of a line graph as a road map with the vertical axis as the north/south

component and the horizontal axis as the east/west component. Students can correctly

interpret a map, but incorrectly apply this interpretation to other more abstract,

representations of motion (Murphy, 2004). When asked to draw a graph representing a

walk to and from a specific location students often create a the graph similar to Figure 3

but should look like Figure 4. In slope/height confusion, students focus on the height of

the graph rather than the incline of the slope when interpreting graphs. Both of these

misinterpretations have been reported in middle school and high school students, college

and university undergraduates and middle school teachers.

22

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 1 2 3 4 5

time

dis

tan

ce

Figure 3. The wrong way to represent a walk to and from a specific location. Adapted from Using Computer-based Laboratories to Teach Graphing Concepts and the Derivative at the College Level by L.D. Murphy (2004). Dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA, p.10.

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

time

dis

tan

ce

Figure 4. The right way to represent a walk to and from a specific location. Adapted from Using Computer-based Laboratories to Teach Graphing Concepts and the Derivative at the College Level by L.D. Murphy (2004). Dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA, p.10.

23

Murphy (2004) compared two methods of teaching derivatives to students in

introductory calculus by using computer graphing technology. The first method, MBL,

although shown to be useful, was expensive and inconvenient. The second method

utilized a Java applet. The student moved a stick across the screen and the computer

produced a position graph. Murphy stated that earlier researchers had speculated that the

motion sensor approach relies on whole-body motion and kinesthetic sense, which

suggested that the Java approach, in which motion of the whole body over several feet is

replaced by moving a hand a few inches, might not be successful. Prior to and after the

instruction the sixty students were given an assessment and an attitude survey. Twenty

eight students used the Java applet and thirty two students used the MBL method. The

preinstructional measures indicated that the two groups were similar in graphing

knowledge. The achievement tests indicated that both methods of instruction helped

students improve their abitlity to interpret motion graphs. Murphy was in favor of the

using the Java applet for her classes in the future because the cost is substantially less

than that of the the motion sensors. Like Pullano (2005), Murphy clearly demonstrated

graphing misconceptions.

In order for students to gain the benefits of probeware, teachers must be trained to use

the technology. Vonderwall, Sparrow and Zachariah (2005) described the

implementation and results of a project designed to train teachers to use an inquiry-based

approach to science education with the help of emerging handheld technology. Both

elementary and middle school teachers learned how to integrate probeware into inquiry-

based science lessons. The professional development session lasted two weeks during

24

which teachers used Palm probes to measure water quality indicators such as pH,

pollution levels, water temperature and dissoved oxygen. The projects had several goals:

1. expose teachers to inquiry-based science and emerging technologies

2. improve the access to underserved and underrepresented populations with

emerging technologies

3. augment an inquiry-based science curriculum using probeware

4. give access to information and ideas developed in the session by creating a

website

The purpose of the study was to find the answers to these questions:

1. What are teachers’ percieved proficiency about inquiry-based lessons utilizing

probeware?

2. Are these technologies accessible?

3. Is a professional development program useful?

4. What are teachers’ experiences and perspectives on probeware used in inquiry

based lessons?

With focus on high-need schools districts in Ohio, 23 teachers participated in the

program. A pre and post Likert scale survey and open-ended question discussion were

implemented to answer the questions above. Teachers were also asked to implement

inquiry-based lessons in their own classrooms and report any benefits or problems. The

results indicated that many teachers changed from feeling not proficient prior to the

program to feeling moderately proficient after the program. In terms of accessibilty (1 =

no access and 5 = very accessible) to technology, teachers answers ranged between 1.3 to

4.0. During the open-ended questions regarding the usefulness of the program as

25

professional development, all of the teachers felt the program was very helpful.

Although some of the teachers reported problems and issues with the implementation of

the inquiry-based lesson with probeware, the general feeling was that they valued the fact

that students could collect, read and analyze real-life data. Vonderwall et al. (2005)

reported that all teachers reported increased student motivation and excitement by using

technology to learn science concepts. Similarly, this study will feed on students’

motivation for technology use to reinforce inquiry.

Metcalf and Tinker (2004) reported on the feasibility of probeware through cost

consideration, teacher professional growth and instructional design. Teaching force and

motion and energy transformation is difficult and can be eased with use of probeware.

The goal of this study was to develop two units that implement alternative low-cost

hardware in order to make technology based science lessons accessible to all. Metcalf

and Tinker stated by demonstrating student learning of these difficult concepts with

economical technologies and practical teacher professional development, we would have

a powerful argument for a broad curriculum development effort using this approach.

Metcalf and Tinker suggested using handheld computers and “homemade” probes rather

than a full computer system and a probe to reduce cost. In this study, students used a

motion detector called a SmartWheel, a do-it-yourself force probe, a temperature probe

and a voltage/current meter. Thirty different classes, between 6-10 grade, with the

number of students ranging from 6-47 participated in the study. Each unit (force and

motion and energy transformation) took between 9 and 20 days to complete. Pre and

post-tests were used to assess student preformance. Surveys and interviews were used to

collect teacher insight. When analyzing the student data, Metcalf focused on specific test

26

questions. For the force and motion unit, they found a 28 percent improvement on a

question that asks students to choose the graph that represents the motion of a cart

moving forward and backwards. For the energy transformation unit, they found an 11

percent improvement on a question that asked about heat flow on a temperature vs. time

graph. Metcalf and Tinker stated that post-interviews with teachers found that student

learning was enhanced through the use of the probes and handhelds for data gathering

and visualizations. Some other findings from teacher interviews include: the probes

worked well, teachers were excited about the using technology in the classroom and were

eager to use it again in their classrooms. Teachers were successful in conducting

investigations utilizing probes and handheld technologies and students made the

correlation between phenomena and modeling, which in turn reduced misconception.

The idea that probeware helps students learn the difficult concepts of force and motion

supports the goal of the proposed study.

All four studies reviewed reported a decrease in graphing misconceptions because

of the use of probeware. Pullano (2005) and Murphy (2004) used substantial evidence

through literature review to clearly describe two graphing misconceptions: GAP or iconic

interpretation and slope/height confusion. Both Metcalf and Tinker (2004), and

Vonderwall et al. (2005) focused some of their attention on professional growth.

Technology does not have much chance for success if teachers do not know how to

implement it. Only two studies, Murphy and Vonderwall et al., presented their results in

an easily understandable format. Metcalf and Pullano’s conclusions were not completely

clear or convincing. Murphy as well as Metcalf and Tinker focused much attention on

the issue of cost and making technology accessible to all. Although MJHS has a

27

partnership with UC Berkeley and has access to laptops and motion probes, it is

important to always consider the cost issue because resources have a tendency to

disappear. Vonderwall et al. and Metcalf and Tinker found success with Palm handheld

computers. The proposed study utilized Vernier probes, which filled the same niche as

the Palm handhelds.

Summmary

According to constructivism, people learn through experiences. Sometimes the

experiences contribute to correct concepts of reality and sometimes experiences

contribute to misconceptions. Hale (2000) maintained that these difficulties are often

based on misconceptions that are rooted in the student’s own experiences. It is the job of

teachers to find these misconceptions and correct them. Interpreting graphs correctly

seems to be a problem for many middle school students. They have trouble gleaning

information from them and producing graphs that represent the corresponding data

correctly. These issues may be caused by the inability to reason in an abstract manner or

because they have limited experiences from which to draw. Teachers have strategies to

help combat these graphing misconceptions. Inquiry-based learning as cited by

Chiappeta (1997) and Colburn (2000) is the most widely accepted vocabulary word to

describe science education. Inquiry-based learning, a pedagogy of constructivism,

focused on the idea that students learn by doing. The teacher acts as a facilitator and

guides the students gently as they migrate through an investigation in which they ask the

questions, decide the procedure, collect and interpret data, make inferences and

conclusions. Inquiry-based learning comes in many forms, but all require that students

have most of the control of their learning. Deters (2005) claimed that even though

28

inquiry-based lesson requires significantly more effort by the teacher and the student, the

effort is worth it. If a student takes part in a few inquiry-based lessons each year during

their middle and high school experience, the fear of “doing science” will be eliminated.

The Graphing Stories project is an inquiry-based activity aimed at correcting student

misconceptions that arise when they must interpret graphs. Interpreting graphs is one of

the most crucial skills in science, especially physics. McDermott et al. (1987) maintained

that students who have no trouble plotting points and computing slopes cannot apply

what they have learned about graphs from their study of mathematics to physics. There

must be other factors, aside from their mathematical background that are responsible. It

is the job of the teacher according to Beichner (1994) to be aware of these factors and use

a wide variety of inquiry-based strategies like the activities in Graphing Stories. It takes

advantage of probeware, specifically Vernier motion probes, which has been shown by

research to help students interpret graphs correctly. The common misconceptions

students have while interperting graphs, according to Pullano (2000) and Murphy (2004),

are iconic interpretation and slope/height confusion. In order for probeware to be

successfully implemented there must be teacher training and sufficient funds. Metcalf

and Tinker (2004) stated that by demonstrating student learning of these difficult

concepts with economical technologies and practical teacher professional development,

we would have a powerful argument for a broad curriculum development effort using this

approach. Some of the implications of the proposed study, utilizing the MBL approach,

are that teachers must identify graphing misconceptions, design and implement

appropriate inquiry-based techniques that present a wide variety of graphing activites,

29

and have confidence that the experiences they provide accurately model how a student

preceives the “real” world.

30

Chapter III

The focus of this research was to explore the effect of using motion probes and

how they may increase student understanding of motion graphs. Middle school science

students need every advantage they can get in order to keep up with the mandated

California state curriculum. This study investigated the problem of graphing

misconceptions through a WISE 4.0 project called Graphing Stories that seamlessly

embedded the use of Vernier motion probes into a series of steps that teach students how

to interpret position vs. time graphs. This MBL experience allowed students to

simultaneously perform a motion and see an accurate position vs. time graph produced on

a computer screen. This program gave students an opportunity to learn graphing

concepts by the nature of its design. Students started with a firm foundation provided to

them by reviewing position and motion, were given significant practice through the use

of the program and were required to take part in several forms of assessment. Observing

multiple classes of students while using the Graphing Stories program and the motion

probes, revealed that simply using this MBL type approach may not be enough to change

how students learn motion graphing. Preliminary evidence showed that while the use of

the MBL tools to do traditional physics experiments may increase the students’ interest,

such activities do not necessarily improve student understanding of fundamental physics

concepts (Thornton & Sokoloff, 1990). Others suggested that the MBL approach works

only if the technology is used correctly. This study tested the hypothesis of whether

students gain a better understanding of graphing concepts after working with Vernier

motion probes and Graphing Stories than the students who work without the motion

probes.

31

Through the design of their curriculum, the science teacher guides students into a

cognitive process of discovery through experimentation. Piaget’s (1952) learning theory

of constructivism reinforced this idea by suggesting that a person’s “real” world

manifests itself through a combination of all the events a person has experienced.

Teachers must ensure students do not fill the gaps of knowledge with incorrect thoughts

while learning from a “self-discovery” lesson. This idea of experimentation and “self

discovery” is known as inquiry-based learning which builds on the pedagogy of

constructivism. Inquiry-based learning, when authentic, complements the constructivist

learning environment because it allows the individual student to tailor their own learning

process (Kubieck, 2005). Motion probe usage involves students in an inquiry-based

learning process.

The literature suggested that there were benefits, Chiappetta (1997) and Colburn

(2005), and problems, Deters (2005), with inquiry-based learning. In Deters, teachers

gave reasons for not using inquiry: loss of control, safety issues, use more class time, fear

of abetting student misconceptions, spent more time grading labs and students have many

complaints. Even though many teachers were reluctant to incorporate inquiry-based

lessons into their curriculum, it was suggested that they may only need to utilize them a

few times to be beneficial. Again in Deters, if students perform even a few inquiry-based

labs each year throughout their middle school and high school careers, by graduation they

will be more confident, critical-thinking people who are unafraid of “doing science”. The

proposed study attempted to teach students how to interpret graphs utilizing an inquiry-

based strategy in computer-supported environment.

32

To be successful in science, especially physics, it is imperative that students

understand how to connect graphs to physical concepts and connecting graphs to the real

world. Since students consistently exhibit the same cognitive difficulty with graphing

concepts, teachers must incorporate the strategies stated in the interpreting graphs section

of Chapter 2 into their curriculum, like giving students a variety of graphing situations

and choosing words carefully. The proposed study utilized probeware in the form of

Vernier motion probes to help combat the difficulties of interpreting graphs. Metcalf and

Tinker (2004) did warn that in order for probeware to be successful, teachers must be

properly trained their usage.

Background and Development of the Study

Year after year, students come into the science classroom without the proper

cognitive tools for learning how to interpret graphs. Few students know what the

mathematical term slope is let alone how to calculate slope. Luckily adolescents are

developing their abstract thinking skills and learning slope is not a problem. One major

issue at work here is that the curriculum materials adopted by MJHS assume that eighth

grade students already know slope concepts. District mandated pacing guides allow no

time for teaching the concept of slope. This study proposed that utilizing probeware,

like Vernier motion probes, might equalize the cognitive tools the between the students. .

Nicolaou, Nicolaidou, Zacharias and Constantinou (2007) stated that real-time graphing,

made possible by data logging software, helps to make the abstract properties being

graphed behave as though they were concrete and manipulable. It was hoped that the

experience of using the motion probes and the software would also allow more time to

address graphing misconceptions.

33

At the time of this study, WISE 4.0 was new technology which seemed to have a

promising future. The unique partnership of UC Berkeley (home of the WISE project)

and the middle school site allowed teachers at the middle school to implement WISE 4.0

curriculum without additional funds. UC Berkeley provided laptops computers, a wifi

router, probeware and graduate and post-graduate researchers for support.

WISE 4.0 Graphing Stories was first available for use in fall 2009. Eighth grade

physical science students at the middle school research site were among the first students

to participate in this innovative program. Teachers using the program immediately took

notice of increased student engagement with the program and the motion probes. In

2009, teachers did not compare results of students utilizing motion probes with students

who did not. However, there was a general perception that motion probe usage was

beneficial. The purpose of this study was to scientifically document whether this

perception was accurate.

Components of the Study

This project had two main research questions:

Does an MBL approach increases student understanding of graphing concepts?

Does motion probe usage increases student engagement?

Along with the main research questions come several secondary objectives which

include: utilize the unique opportunity of the partnership between UC Berkeley and

MJHS, reinforce the idea that the project Graphing Stories is an inquiry based learning

tool and utilize students’ enthusiasm for technology.

One purpose of technology is to improve the quality of our lives. This includes

improving the way teachers provide access to information for students. Today’s students

34

are digital natives (Prensky, 2001) and have enthusiasm for technology. The MBL

approach was developed in the 1980’s with the invention of microcomputers, which is

considered old technology today. The microcomputer-based laboratory utilized a

computer, a data collection interface, electronic probes, and graphing software, allowing

students to collect, graph, and analyze data in real-time. Use of MBL would seem to be a

natural way to engage digital learners yet, it appears that this idea has not really caught

on even though many agree that it is successful. Two reasons may be preventing its

usage:

1. It is expensive to set-up a MBL.

2. Teachers are not properly trained in and are not asked to implement an MBL

approach.

Research has not proven that an MBL approach is superior to traditional methods.

The idea that technology is a valuable learning tool was supported by the literature

surrounding the use of the MBL approach or probeware. In general, research suggested

that MBL is helpful, but did not prove its benefits.

Metcalf and Tinker (2004) suggested that the cost of probeware is part of the

reason why more teachers are not using them. The secondary objective of utilizing the

unique opportunity of the partnership between UC Berkeley and MJHS negates the issue

of cost. WISE 4.0 has been funded by a series of grants written by Marcia Linn, the

senior researcher for the WISE project. WISE 4.0 Graphing Stories, a free program

accessible through wise4.telscenter.org, is considered to be an inquiry-based learning

tool.

35

Inquiry-based learning is often considered the goal of science instruction. The

secondary teaching objective to reinforce the idea that the project Graphing Stories as an

inquiry based learning tool and utilize students’ enthusiasm for technology came about

because of this method of delivery. Strategies and techniques that are used by successful

science teachers include: asking questions, science process skills, discrepant events,

inductive and deductive activites, information gathering and problem solving (Chiappeta,

1997). These strategies, provided through Graphing Stories, indirectly push students into

learning science concepts through self-discovery. The motion probe and accompaning

software encouraged students to move around and create personalized position vs. time

graphs as many times as they pleased. This teaching objective was measured by asking

students to report on their perception of how motion probes affected their engagement.

Methodology

This study examined whether the use of Vernier motion probes and related

software increased student understanding of position vs. time graphs. Since the

researcher taught 4 eighth grade classes, it was decided to utilize a convenience sample

for this study. Data collection took place from October 7-14, 2010. Two classes (n =

64) were the control group; meaning that they did not use motion probes. The other two

classes (n = 61) used the motion probes and related software. All classes were given a

pre and post-test and a post-instructional survey. The pre-test was administered prior to

implementing WISE 4.0 Graphing Stories. All classes worked through the project, which

took 5 -50 minute sessions. Several steps in the project asked students to utilize motion

probes. The control group was asked to complete a task that that did not involve the

motion probe. This allowed for both groups to have different graphing experiences but

36

be engaged an equal amount of time. The post-test was given after both groups

completed Graphing Stories. The purpose of collecting qualitative data from the student

survey, Student Perceptions of Motion Probes (see Appendix B), was to get a sense of

students’ opinions regarding the use of motion probes when they learn how to graph

motion. It was hoped that both motion probe users and non motion probe users would

feel that motion probe usage increased student engagement.

Sequence of events.

1. All students given a pre-test (see Appendix A)

2. All students participated in Graphing Stories exercise in which they are given

a graph and a story that matches

a. Experimental group used Vernier motion probes to test their

prediction of how the graph was created in real time

b. Control group did not do this step

3. All students asked to write a personal story involving motion and to create a

matching position vs. time graph

a. Experimental group used Vernier motion probes to test their

prediction of how the graph was created in real time

b. Control group did not do this step

4. All students given a post-test (see Appendix A)

5. All students given the student survey, Student Perceptions of Motion Probes

(see Appendix B)

The pre-test (Appendix A) consisted of twelve questions that asked students to

draw various simple position vs. time graphs. The post-test (Appendix A) consisted of

37

the same twelve questions as the pre-test plus a graph depicting a race followed by six

questions that tested for understanding.

Results

In Figures 5 and 6, the motion probe users were compared to non motion probe

users. Figure 5 shows a frequency distribution of the scores all students earned on the

pre-test. The scores were grouped into ten percent intervals. The range of scores on the

pre-test was from 12.5 percent to 100 percent. Of the motion probe users, 10 percent had

already mastered the interpretation of position vs. time graphs as compared to 12 percent

of the non motion probe users.

Figure 6 shows a frequency distribution of the scores all students earned on the

post-test. The score were again grouped into ten percent intervals. The range of scores

on the post-test was from 6 percent to 100 percent. Of the motion probe users, 37 percent

had mastered the interpretation of position vs. time graphs as compared to 34 percent of

the non motion probe users. Since the pre-tests were given anonymously, it was

impossible to present the data in matched pairs. Unexpectedly, one student from each

group performed at a lower level than they had in the pre-test.

38

Pre-Test Scores

1 1 12

56

56

12

23

12

0

2

5

78

13

6

23

0

5

10

15

20

25

0-9% 19-10% 29-20% 39-30% 49-40% 59-50% 69-60% 79-70% 89-80% 100-90%

test scores

nu

mb

er

of

stu

de

nts

motion probe user non motion probe user

Figure 5. Frequency distribution of the pre-test scores.Non motion probe users n = 64; motion probe users n = 61

Post-Test Scores

0

10

12 12

1

11

4

3

2

6

0

7

10 10

4

7

10

6

2

8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0-9% 19-10% 29-20% 39-30% 49-40% 59-50% 69-60% 79-70% 89-80% 100-90%

test scores

nu

mb

er

of

stu

de

nts

motion probe user non motion probe user

Figure 6. Frequency distribution of the post-test scores. Non motion probe users n = 67; motion probe users n = 62

39

Tables 1, 2 and 3 show the frequency distribution of student responses to the

survey questions regarding the usefulness of motion probes, motion probes and student

engagement and the advantage of motion probes.

Table 1

Frequency Distribution of Responses to the Questions Regarding the Usefulness of Motion Probes.

 

Would not be able to learn

without them

very helpful helpful

not helpful

made it more

difficult for motion

probe users to

learn

Question 1 MOTION PROBE USER Motion probe user: How useful do you think the motion probes were in helping you learn about position vs. time graphs?

5 20 37 1 0

Question 7 NON-MOTION PROBE USER NOT a motion probe user: How useful do you think using the motion probes is for learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs? Remember you are making a judgment for those who actually used them.

1 15 47 8 1

totals for both groups6 35 84 9 1

40

Table 2

Frequency Distribution of Responses to the Questions Regarding Motion Probes and Student Engagement.

 

motion probes made

the lesson something to

remember

motion probes

made the lesson more

engaging

motion probes did

not necessarily

engage them

motion probes

made the lesson less

engaging Question 4 MOTION PROBE USER Motion probe user: Did using motion probes help you become more engaged in the learning process?

11 45 5 0

Question 10 NON-MOTION PROBE USER NOT a motion probe user: Do you think using motion probes made the lesson more engaging for the student who used them?

6 35 13 0

totals for both groups 17 80 18 0

Table 3

Frequency Distribution of Responses to the Questions Regarding the Advantage of a Motion Probe.

advantageno

advantagedo not know

Question 5 MOTION PROBE USER Motion probe user: Do you feel you had an advantage over the students who did not utilize the motion probes in learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs? Please explain

52 8 0

Question 11 NON-MOTION PROBE USER NOT a motion probe user: Do you feel students who used the motion probes had an advantage over the students who did not utilize the motion probes in learning how to interpret position vs. time

42 11 1

totals for both groups 94 19 1

41

The data from the survey entitled, Student Perceptions of Motion Probes, revealed the

following preceptions of motion probes:

93 percent (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 percent (10/135) felt the motion probe was

not useful.

84 percent (97/115) of the students felt the motion probe made the lesson more

engaging, and 16 percent (18/115) felt the motion probe made the lesson either

not engaging or less engaging.

83 percent (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 percent (19/113) felt there was no advantage.

Analysis

The unpaired t-test was used to compare the motion probe users and the non

motion probe users groups for both the pre and post-test. The unpaired t-test was chosen

because the sample sizes between the groups were not equal.

Results of the pre-test. There was no significant difference between the motion

probe users and the non motion probe users in initial knowledge of how to interpret

position vs. time graphs (t = 1.3256, d.f. = 123, P = 0.1874 p = .05). This result

supported the desired outcome of having the two groups start with equal understanding of

position vs. time graphs.

42

Results of the post-test. The post-test results showed no significant difference

between the motion probe users and the non motion probe users (t = 0.6595, d.f. = 127, P

= 0.5107 p = .05) in knowledge of how to interpret position vs. time graphs. This result

did not give results to support the desired outcome of having the two groups end with

unequal understanding of position vs. time graphs, i.e. the group that used the motion

probes was expected to perform better. The researcher must accept the null hypothesis

which states that students will not have a better understanding of graphing concepts after

working with Vernier motion probes and Graphing Stories than the students who work

without the motion probes.

Results of student survey. Although the pre and post-test results suggested that

an MBL approach does not necessarily increase student understanding of graphing

concepts, the student survey, Student Perceptions of Motion Probes (see Appendix B),

did help answer the research question regarding motion probe usage and student

engagement. The answers given by both the motion probe and non motion probes users

clearly demonstrated that motion probe usage was beneficial in terms of increasing

student engagement when working with position vs. time graphs.

An informal review of students’ actions while utilizing the motion probes

revealed valuable insight to how they view position vs. time graphs. Similar to Lapp and

Cyrus (2000), students did not understand the information the graph was presenting

(Figure 7). Instead of moving back and forth along a straight line to produce a graph

that matched the distance time information given, students typically walked in a path that

resembled the shape of the original graph (Lapp & Cyrus, 2000). The probe is not able to

detect the path of motion many students tried to follow (Figure 8).

43

Figure 7. Distance time graph for student investigation. Reprinted from D. Lapp & V. Cyrus (2000). Using Data-Collection Devices to Enhance Students’ Understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93(6), p. 504.

Figure 8. Path of walker. Reprinted from D. Lapp & V. Cyrus (2000). Using Data-Collection Devices to Enhance Students’ Understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93(6), p. 504. Summary

The responsibility of teaching eighth grade students how to interpret position vs.

time graphs has been slowed by a significant hurdle. The California State Standards

assumes that eighth grade students know how to interpret and calculate slope. It is

44

considered an abstract concept and not taught until well into the algebra curriculum.

Many students do not even take algebra until high school. Physical science curriculum

requires students to understand slope prior to it being taught how to graph motion.

Working with UC, Berkeley, MJHS teachers have been lucky to utilize WISE 4.0,

specifically Graphing Stories. The researcher discovered a new technology (Graphing

Stories and Vernier motion probes) and decided to use it. Even though research of the

MBL approach has failed to prove its worth, many still claim it to be beneficial provided

that it is used correctly. This study was based on the hypothesis that motion probes usage

would help students interpret position vs. time graphs better than student who did not use

motion probes. Analysis of data revealed that the Vernier motion probe did not give its

users an advantage over the non-users in interpreting motion graphs. A student survey,

however, found that students felt the motion probes made the lesson more engaging.

45

Chapter IV

This study examined a problem with the sequence of the California State

Standards which expect eighth grade students to understand and calculate slope prior to

the exposure to the physical science curriculum. This expectation is based on the

assumption that students have previous experience with the mathematical concept of

slope. In fact, in the mathematics sequence, the concept of slope is not introduced to

math students until well into the algebra curriculum. Students who have developed their

abstract thinking skills and are competent in mathematics have no trouble with slope

regardless of prior instruction. Students who are just developing their abstract thinking

skill and/or poor in mathematics have a difficult time with the concept of slope.

This creates a knowledge gap when it is time for a middle school science teacher

to teach motion graphs. This study was conceived in response to observations by the

researcher after utilizing WISE 4.0, Graphing Stories and Vernier motion probes that

there was a change in student behavior when they learned how interpret position vs. time

graphs using those tools. This study attempted to quantify the degree of change when

using the combination of Graphing Stories and motion probes to teach motion graphs.

This combination of tools is considered to be an MBL approach, which refers to any

technique that connects a physical event to immediate graphic representation.

This study had similar outcomes to Brungardt and Zollman (1995) who found no

significant differences between learning with real-time and delay-time analysis, but did

notice that students using MBLs appeared to be more motivated and demonstrated more

discussion in their groups. The purpose of this study was to show that motion probe

46

usage, despite the knowledge gap, would help students interpret position vs. time graphs

better than the previous non-motion probe teaching techniques.

Study Outcomes

This study tested the hypothesis that students would have a better understanding

of graphing concepts after working with Vernier motion probes and Graphing Stories

than the students who work without the motion probes. Two main research questions

guided the study:

Does an MBL approach increases student understanding of graphing concepts?

Does motion probe usage increases student engagement?

Along with the main research questions come several secondary goals which included:

utilize the unique opportunity of the partnership between UC Berkeley and MJHS,

reinforce the idea that the project Graphing Stories is an inquiry based learning tool and

utilize students’ enthusiasm for technology.

Even though the researcher had access to approximately 130 eighth grade

students, the experimental and control group samples could not be randomly assigned.

The only option was to utilize the fact that the students were separated into four classes

and create a convenience sample. This may have caused the samples to be slightly

biased.

The four classes were separated into two groups of two classes each, one group

was designated the motion probe users and other became the non-motion probe users.

The pre-test results found the groups to be similar in their position vs. time graph

knowledge. Both groups worked through the Graphing Stories lesson. The motion probe

users utilized the motion probes for several steps while the non motion users did not. The

47

post-test results also showed the groups to be similar in their position vs. time graph

knowledge.

Although the results did not show that an MBL approach increased student

understanding of graphing concepts, this result was consistent with the literature.

Preliminary evidence showed that while the use of the MBL tools to do traditional

physics experiments may increase the students’ interest, such activities do not necessarily

improve student understanding of fundamental physics concepts (Thornton & Sokoloff,

1990). This statement was also reinforced by the data from the student survey. Most

students felt that motion probes increased engagement and were advantageous for

learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs.

As for the other three goals, this study was successful. The partnership between

UC Berkeley and MJHS is still in effect as of fall 2010. Every WISE 4.0 project run is

followed by an in depth interview about successes, failures and ideas to improve WISE

projects. The fact that students are engaged in self-discovery and create individual

motion graphs and stories helps reinforce the idea that Graphing Stories is an inquiry

based learning tool. The students who took part in this study expressed enthusiasm for

utilizing technology when the student survey showed that motion probes increased

engagement. The finding of the researcher are to similar to Vonderwall et al. (2005) who

found that all teachers report increased student motivation and excitement by using

technology to learn science concepts.

Proposed Audience, Procedures and Implementation Timeline

The idea for this study spawned from the problem that the California State

Standards assumes that eighth grade students understand slope prior to entering physical

48

science class. They are not taught slope until well into algebra class (currently eighth

grade math). In the fall 2009, the researcher was introduced to Graphing Stories and the

use of motion probes. An increase in student engagement and possibly an improved

method of teaching motion graphs was noticed. In spring 2010 the researcher enrolled in

the Educational Technology masters program at Touro University. A small bit of

searching revealed that the approach being applied by using computers and motion

probes was called Microcomputer-Based Laboratory (MBL). More searching revealed

that most literature stated the MBL approach was beneficial yet none had proven it. The

researcher noticed such a change in student behavior during the fall 2009 that the MBL

approach must be useful. Graphing Stories provided the perfect balance of implementing

the MBL approach, inquiry based learning, technology usage and teaching student how to

interpret motion graphs. Data collection started in October 2010. Two groups of

approximately 60 students were given a pre-test. After the students worked through the

project a post-test was given. Finally, a student survey was given to test for student

perceptions on the motion probes. Although the data did not reveal the desired result of

having the MBL approach be directly beneficial, it has supported the general findings of

much of the research surrounding graphing misconceptions, probeware and motion

graphs. This study has contributed to the field of education buy reinforcing the idea that

teachers can utilize emerging technologies, like probeware, to encourage students to learn

difficult concepts like motion graphing with enthusiasm.

The new age of student as digital natives is causing teachers to search for new

way to engage students. There is overwhelming competition for adolescent attention

with cell phones and video games leading the way. Teachers who are willing to

49

incorporate technology into their tool box (digital immigrants) are better off than those

who are afraid. Digital immigrants are trying to improve an educational system that is no

longer designed to meet the needs of today’s students. The researchers (UC Berkeley and

Concord Consortium) involved with WISE 4.0 have expressed interest in the finding of

this study. The proposed audience includes any person involved with education who

wants to utilize technology to increase student understanding and enthusiasm for learning

science concepts.

Evaluation of the Study

As stated earlier, the analysis of data revealed that the Vernier motion probe did

not give its users an advantage over the non-users in interpreting motion graphs. A

student survey, however, found that students felt the motion probes made the lesson more

engaging. The overwhelming agreement of students who felt usage of motion probes was

engaging and advantageous must be an indicator that they work. Another study with a

larger sample size (n = 1000) and spread over several years might reveal a desired result.

Since eighth grade students are still developing their abstract thinking skills, the study

might work better with high school or college students. It is not feasible to ask in-depth

motion graphing questions to someone with limited graphing experience. In order to get

an accurate representation of a student’s knowledge of position vs. time graphs it is

imperative to ask thorough rather than superficial questions. Another limitation arises

when considering that the space for motion probe usage is about four feet by ten feet.

The space requirements are particularly inconvenient because all furniture has to be

cleared away (Murphy, 2004). In large classes, this is nearly impossible. The motion

probe users in this study had a space of about 2 feet by 7 feet. A future study should

50

include a larger sample size over a longer period, in-depth questioning and ample space

for motion probe usage.

Summary

In general, research has revealed both positive correlation and no correlation

between real-time graphing of a physical event and improved interpreting graph skills as

compared to traditional motion graph lessons. Substituting the MBL approach for

traditional motion graphing lesson appeared to have no effect on improved interpreting

graphing skills according to the results of this study. Even though no correlation was

found, the researcher will continue to utilize Graphing Stories and motion probes to

teaching motion graphing. Graphing Stories provided a perfect balance of inquiry-based

learning, technology and interpretation of position vs. time graphs. The student survey

reinforced the idea that technology in form of motion probes is helping the digital

immigrants to teach digital natives. Observing students work with motion probes

allowed the teacher to discover misconceptions that might go unnoticed like iconic

interpretation and slope/height confusion. Students walk out of the range of the motion

probe in an attempt to “draw” the picture that they think the graph represents. Students

also move slower, rather than faster, when they see a steeper slope because in reality the

steeper hill the slower you walk. A teacher unaware of these misconceptions will miss

the “teaching moment” when it arises.

51

References

Barclay, W. (1986). Graphing misconceptions and possible remedies using

microcomputer-based labs. Paper presented at the Seventh National Educational

Computing Conference, San Diego, CA June, 1986.

Beichner, R. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American

Journal of Physics, 62, 750-762.

Bernhard, J. (2003). Physics learning and microcomputer based laboratory (MBL):

Learning effects of using MBL as a technological and as a cognitive tool, in

Science Education Research in the Knowledge Based Society, D. Psillos, et al.,

(Eds.), Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 313-321.

Bohren, J. (1988). A nine month study of graph construction skills and reasoning

strategies used by ninth grade students to construct graphs of science data by hand

and with computer graphing software. Dissertation. Ohio State

University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 08A.

Boudourides, M. (2003). Constructivism, education, science, and technology. Canadian

Journal of Learning and Technology, 29(3), 5-20.

Brasell, H. (1987). The effects of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic

representations of distance and velocity. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 24, 385–95.

Brungardt, J., & Zollman, D. (1995). The influence of interactive videodisc instruction

using real-time analysis on kinematics graphing skills of high school physics

students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(8), 855-869.

52

Bryan, J. (2006). Technology for physics instruction. Contemporary Issues in

Technology and Teacher Education, 6(2), 230-245.

Chiappetta, E. (1997). Inquiry-based science. Science Teacher, 64(7), 22-26.

Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope.

Concord Consortium. (n.d.). Probeware: Developing new tools for data collection and

analysis. Retrieved November 23, 2010 from

http://www.concord.org/work/themes/probeware.html

Crawford, A. & Scott, W. (2000). Making sense of slope. The Mathematics Teacher, 93,

114-118.

Dykastra, D. (1992). Studying conceptual change in learning physics. Science Education,

76, 615-652.

Deters, K. (2005). Student opinions regarding inquiry-based labs. Journal of Chemical

Education, 82, 1178-1180.

Hale, P. (2000). Kinematics and graphs: Students' difficulties and cbls. Mathematics

Teacher, 93(5), 414-417.

Huber, R. & Moore, C. (2001). A model for extending hands-on science to be inquiry-

based. School Science and Mathematics, 101(1), 32-42.

Keating, D. (1990). Adolescent thinking. In At the threshold: The developing adolescent.

S.S. Feldman and G.R. Elliott, eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

1990, pp. 54–89.

Kozhevnikov, M. & Thornton, R. (2006) Real-time data display, spatial visualization,

and learning force and motion concepts. Journal of Science Education and

Technology, 15, 113-134.

53

Kubieck, J. (2005). Inquiry-based learning, the nature of science, and computer

technology: New possibilities in science education. Canadian Journal of Learning

and Technology, 31(1).

Lapp, D. (1997). A theoretical model for student perception of technological

authority. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Technology in

Mathematics Teaching, Koblenz, Germany, 29 September-2 October 1997.

Lapp, D. & Cyrus, V. (2000). Using Data-Collection Devices to Enhance Students’

Understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93(6), 504-510.

National Institute of Health. (2005). Doing science: The process of scientific inquiry.

http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih6/inquiry/guide/info_process-

a.htm

National Research Council. The National Science Education Standards. (n.d.). Retrieved

July 23, 2010 from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?

record_id=4962&page=103

Nicolaou, C., Nicolaidou, I., Zacharia, Z., & Constantinou, C. (2007). Enhancing fourth

graders’ ability to interpret graphical representations through the use of

microcomputer-based labs implemented within an inquiry-based activity

sequence. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,

26(1), 75-99.

McDermott, L., Rosenquist, M., & van Zee, E. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting

graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55,

503-513.

54

Metcalf, S. & Tinker, R. (2004). Probeware and handhelds in elementary and middle

school science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 43–49.

Mokros, J. & Tinker, R. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children’s

ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 369-383.

Monk, S. (1994). How students and scientists change their minds. MAA invited address

at the Joint Mathematics Meetings, Cincinnati, Ohio, January

Murphy, L. (2004). Using computer-based laboratories to teach graphing concepts and

the derivative at the college level. Dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

Nachmias, R. & Linn, M. (1987). Evaluations of science laboratory data: The role of

computer-presented information. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24,

491–506.

National Science Teachers Association. (1999). NSTA Position Statement: The use of

computers in science education. Retrieved November 23, 2010, from

http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/computers.aspx

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International

Universities Press.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. Translated by H. Weaver.

New York: Basic Books.

Piaget, J. (1972). Psychology and epistemology: Towards a theory of knowledge.

Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

55

Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibrium of cognitive structures. New

York: Viking Press.

Piaget, J. (1980). The psychogenesis of knowledge and its epistemological

significance. In M. Piattelli-Palmarini (Ed.), Language and learning. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Pullano, F. (2005). Using probeware to improve students' graph interpretation abilities

School Science and Mathematics, 105(7).

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–2.

Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Shechtman, N., Hegedua, S., Hopkins, B., Knudsen, J., et al.

(2007). Scaling up SimCalc project: Can a technology enhanced curriculum

improve student learning of important mathematics? Technical Report 01. SRI

International.

Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Douglas, G. & Means, B. (2000). Changing how and

what children learn in school with computer-base technologies. The Future of

Children, 10, Children and Computer Technology (Autumn – Winter, 2000), pp.

76-101.

Testa, I., Mouray, G. & Sassi, E. (2002). Students’ reading images in kinematics: The

case of real-time graphs. International Journal of Science Education, 24,

235−256.

Sokoloff, D., Laws, P. & Thornton, R., (2007). Real time physics: Active learning labs

transforming the introductory laboratory. European Journal of Physics, 28(3), 83-

94.

56

Thornton, R. (1986). Tools for scientific thinking: microcomputer-based laboratories for

the naive science learner. Paper presented at the Seventh National Educational

Computing Conference, San Diego, CA June, 1986.

Thornton, R. & Sokoloff, D. (1990). Learning motion concepts using real-time

microcomputer-based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58(9), 858-

867.

Tinker, R. (1986). Modeling and MBL: Software tools for science. Paper presented at the

Seventh National Educational Computing Conference, San Diego, CA June, 1986.

Vernier Software and Technology. (n.d.), Motion Detectors, Retrieved November 23,

2010, from http://www.vernier.com/probes/motion.html

Vonderwell, S., Sparrow, K. & Zachariah, S. (2005). Using handheld computers and

probeware in inquiry-based science education. Journal of the Research Center for

Educational Technology, Fall, 1-14.

WISE – Web-based Inquiry Science Environment. (1998-2010). Retrieved November 23,

2010, from http://wise.berkeley.edu/

WISE – Web-based Inquiry Science Environment. (1998-2010). Graphing Stories.

Retrieved December 1, 2010, from

http://wise4.telscenter.org/webapp/vle/preview.html?projectId=17

57

Appendix A

Student Perception on Use of Motion Probes

Please answer the questions below as to help decide if using motion probes helps students learn how to interpret position vs. time graphs. If you are a student who used the motion probe please answer questions 1-6. If you are a student who did not use the motion probes please answer questions 7-12.

Question 1 MOTION PROBE USER Motion probe user: How useful do you think the motion probes were in helping you learn about position vs. time graphs? • Could not learn how to interpret position vs. time graphs without it • very helpful • helpful • not helpful • made it more difficult for me to interpret position vs. time graphs • Other: Question 2 MOTION PROBE USER Motion probe user: How difficult was it to figure out how to use the motion probe? • very easy to operate • some learning curve, but otherwise easy to operate • difficult to operate • never figured out how to operate • Other:

Question 3 MOTION PROBE USER Motion probe user: If you were responsible for teaching position vs. time graphs to others, would you utilize motion probes? • definitely utilize the motion probe • utilize the motion probe if convenient • take it or leave it • would not utilize • Other:

Question 4 MOTION PROBE USER Motion probe user: Did using motion probes help you become more engaged in the learning process? • motion probes made the lesson something to remember • motion probes made the lesson more engaging • motion probes did not necessarily engage me • motion probes made the lesson less engaging

58

• Other:

Question 5 MOTION PROBE USER Motion probe user: Do you feel you had an advantage over the students who did not utilize the motion probes in learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs? Please explain

Question 6 MOTION PROBE USER Motion probe user: Do you feel you are more prepared for the final assessment on position vs. time graphs than the non-motion probe users? • much more prepared • slightly more prepared • equally prepared • under prepared • Other:

Question 7 NON-MOTION PROBE USER NOT a motion probe user: How useful do you think using the motion probes is for learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs? Remember you are making a judgment for those that actually used them. • Would not be able to learn without them • very helpful • helpful • not helpful • made it more difficult for motion probe users to learn • Other:

Question 8 NON-MOTION PROBE USER NOT a motion probe user: Please describe the function of a motion probe to the best of your ability.

Question 9 NON-MOTION PROBE USER NOT a motion probe user: If you were responsible for teaching position vs. time graphs to others, would you utilize motion probes? • definitely utilize the motion probe • utilize the motion probe if convenient • take or leave it • would not utilize • Other:

Question 10 NON-MOTION PROBE USER NOT a motion probe user: Do you think using motion probes made the lesson more engaging for the student who used them? • motion probes made the lesson something to remember • motion probes made the lesson more engaging • motion probes did not necessarily engage them • motion probes made the lesson less engaging • Other:

59

Question 11 NON-MOTION PROBE USER NOT a motion probe user: Do you feel students who used the motion probes had an advantage over the students who did not utilize the motion probes in learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs? Please explain

Question 12 NON-MOTION PROBE USER NOT a motion probe user: Do you feel you are more prepared for the final assessment on position vs. time graphs than the motion probe users? • much more prepared • slightly more prepared • equally prepared • under prepared • Other:

60

61

Appendix B

Pre /Post-test for Using Motion Probes to Enhance Students’ Understanding of Position vs. Time Graphs. Note: pre test only included questions 1-12

62

63

64

Wei-Lynn and Vijay's Race

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

time (seconds)

po

sit

ion

in

me

ters

finish line

Wei-Lynn

Vijay

13. What is the slope of each line?

Wei-Lynn______________ Vijay_______________

14. What is Wei-Lynn’s speed? (Show work)

15. What is Vijay’s speed? (Show work)

16. How far is Wei-Lynn from the finish line at 15 seconds?

17. How far is Vijay from the finish line at 6 seconds?

18. This race takes places on a football field. Draw a picture if viewed from above. (Include all details).

65

66

67