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

A Project Presented to the Faculty of the College of Education

Touro University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of

MASTERS OF ARTS

In

Educational Technology

by

Jefferson Hartman

Chapter 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

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

complicated problems (Keating, 1990). Eight 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 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.

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

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

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

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

chemistry teachers all over the U.S., 45% 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.

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 & 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

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

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 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 & 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 & Scott suggested three

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

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 require 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, page 117.

Crawford & 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

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

regarding a student’s understanding of slope.

Hale (2000) reinforced ideas from McDermott, Rosenquist & van Zee (1987) and

Crawford & 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. (1987). 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 in 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

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

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 graph 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 grap 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.

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.

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.

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

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, twenty three 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 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 (2004) 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

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

a question that asked about heat flow on a temperature vs. time graph. Metcalf and

Tinker (2004) 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

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

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, Rosenquist & van Zee

(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, and have confidence that the experiences they provide accurately

model how a student preceives the “real” world.

References

Barclay, W. (1986). Graphing misconceptions and possible remedies using

microcomputer-based labs. Paper presented at the Seventh National Educational

Computing Conference, San Diego, CA June, 1986.

Beichner, R. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American

Journal of Physics, 62, 750-762.

Bernhard, J. (2003). Physics learning and microcomputer based laboratory (MBL):

Learning effects of using MBL as a technological and as a cognitive tool, in

Science Education Research in the Knowledge Based Society, D. Psillos, et al.,

(Eds.), Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 313-321.

Bohren, J. (1988). A nine month study of graph construction skills and reasoning

strategies used by ninth grade students to construct graphs of science data by hand

and with computer graphing software. Dissertation. Ohio State

University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 08A.

Boudourides, M. (2003). Constructivism, education, science, and technology. Canadian

Journal of Learning and Technology, 29(3), 5-20.

Brasell, H. (1987). The effects of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic

representations of distance and velocity. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 24, 385–95.

Brungardt, J., & Zollman, D. (1995). The influence of interactive videodisc instruction

using real-time analysis on kinematics graphing skills of high school physics

students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(8), 855-869.

Bryan, J. (2006). Technology for physics instruction. Contemporary Issues in

Technology and Teacher Education, 6(2), 230-245.

Chiappetta, E. (1997). Inquiry-based science. Science Teacher, 64(7), 22-26.

Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope.

Concord Consortium.(n.d.). Probeware: Developing new tools for data collection and

analysis. Retrieved November 23, 2010 from

http://www.concord.org/work/themes/probeware.html

Crawford, A. & Scott, W. (2000). Making sense of slope. The Mathematics Teacher, 93,

114-118.

Dykastra, D. (1992). Studying conceptual change in learning physics. Science Education,

76, 615-652.

Deters, K. (2005). Student opinions regarding inquiry-based labs, Journal of Chemical

Education, 82, 1178-1180.

Hale, P. (2000). Kinematics and graphs: Students' difficulties and cbls. Mathematics

Teacher, 93(5), 414-417.

Huber, R. & Moore, C. (2001). A model for extending hands-on science to be inquiry-

based. School Science and Mathematics, 101(1), 32-42.

Keating, D. (1990). Adolescent thinking. In At the threshold: The developing adolescent.

S.S. Feldman and G.R. Elliott, eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

1990, pp. 54–89.

Kozhevnikov, M. & Thornton, R. (2006) Real-time data display, spatial visualization,

and learning force and motion concepts. Journal of Science Education and

Technology, 15, 113-134.

Kubieck, J. (2005). Inquiry-based learning, the nature of science, and computer

technology: New possibilities in science education. Canadian Journal of Learning

and Technology. 31(1).

Lapp, D. (1997). A theoretical model for student perception of technological

authority. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Technology in

Mathematics Teaching, Koblenz, Germany, 29 September-2 October 1997.

Lapp, D. & Cyrus, V. (2000). Using Data-Collection Devices to Enhance Students’

Understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93(6), 504-510.

National Institute of Health. (2005). Doing science: The process of scientific inquiry.

http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih6/inquiry/guide/info_process-

a.htm

National Research Council. The National Science Education Standards. .(n.d.). Retrieved

July 23, 2010 from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?

record_id=4962&page=103

Nicolaou, C., Nicolaidou, I., Zacharia, Z., & Constantinou, C. (2007). Enhancing fourth

graders’ ability to interpret graphical representations through the use of

microcomputer-based labs implemented within an inquiry-based activity

sequence. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,

26(1), 75-99.

McDermott, L., Rosenquist, M., & van Zee, E. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting

graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55,

503-513.

Metcalf, S. & Tinker, R. (2004). Probeware and handhelds in elementary and middle

school science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 43–49.

Mokros, J. & Tinker, R. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children’s

ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 369-383.

Monk, S. (1994). How students and scientists change their minds. MAA invited address

at the Joint Mathematics Meetings, Cincinnati, Ohio, January

Murphy, L. (2004). Using computer-based laboratories to teach graphing concepts and

the derivative at the college level. Dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

Nachmias, R. & Linn, M. (1987). Evaluations of science laboratory data: The role of

computer-presented information. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24,

491–506.

National Science Teachers Association. (1999). NSTA Position Statement: The use of

computers in science education. Retrieved November 23, 2010, from

http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/computers.aspx

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International

Universities Press.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. Translated by H. Weaver.

New York: Basic Books.

Piaget, J. (1972). Psychology and epistemology: Towards a theory of knowledge.

Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibrium of cognitive structures. New

York: Viking Press.

Piaget, J. (1980). The psychogenesis of knowledge and its epistemological

significance. In M. Piattelli-Palmarini (Ed.), Language and learning. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Pullano, F. (2005). Using probeware to improve students' graph interpretation abilities

School Science and Mathematics, 105(7).

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–2.

Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Shechtman, N., Hegedua, S., Hopkins, B., Knudsen, J., et al.

(2007). Scaling up SimCalc project: Can a technology enhanced curriculum

improve student learning of important mathematics? Technical Report 01. SRI

International.

Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Douglas, G. and Means, B. (2000). Changing how

and what children learn in school with computer-base technologies. The Future of

Children, 10, Children and Computer Technology (Autumn – Winter, 2000), pp.

76-101.

Testa, I., Mouray, G. and Sassi, E. (2002). Students’ reading images in kinematics: The

case of real-time graphs. International Journal of Science Education, 24,

235−256.

Sokoloff, D., Laws, P., and Thornton, R., (2007). Real time physics: active learning labs

transforming the introductory laboratory. European Journal of Physics, 28(3), 83-

94.

Thornton, R. (1986). Tools for scientific thinking: microcomputer-based laboratories for

the naive science learner. Paper presented at the Seventh National Educational

Computing Conference, San Diego, CA June, 1986.

Thornton, R. & Sokoloff, D. (1990). Learning motion concepts using real-time

microcomputer-based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58(9), 858-

867.

Tinker, R. (1986). Modeling and MBL: Software tools for science. Paper presented at the

Seventh National Educational Computing Conference, San Diego, CA June, 1986.

Vernier Software and Technology (n.d.), Motion Detectors, Retrieved on November 23,

2010 from http://www.vernier.com/probes/motion.html

Vonderwell, S., Sparrow, K. & Zachariah, S. (2005). Using handheld computers and

probeware in inquiry-based science education. Journal of the Research Center for

Educational Technology, Fall, 1-14.

WISE – Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (1998-2010). Retrieved on November

23, 2010 from http://wise.berkeley.edu/

WISE – Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (1998-2010). Graphing Stories.

Retrieved fall 2010 from http://wise4.telscenter.org/webapp/vle/preview.html?

projectId=17