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 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 and 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.

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 are 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.

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, & 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.

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

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 Martinez Junior High

School 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.

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

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

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% to 100%. Of the motion probe users, 10% had already mastered

the interpretation of position vs. time graphs as compared to12% 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% to 100%. Of the motion probe users, 37% had mastered the

interpretation of position vs. time graphs as compared to 34% 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.

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 scoresNon 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

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 0Question 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 groups 6 35 84 9 1

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 0Question 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 0totals 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 0Question 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 1totals for both groups 94 19 1

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

following preceptions of motion probes:

93% (125/135) of the students felt the motion probe was useful (motion probe

users) or thought it would be useful (non motion probe users) for learning about

position vs. time graphs, and 7% (10/135) felt the motion probe was not useful.

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

engaging, and 16% (18/115) felt the motion probe made the lesson either not

engaging or less engaging.

83% (94/113) of the students felt the motion probe users had an advantage over

non motion probe users in learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs, and

17% (19/113) felt there was no advantage.

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.

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 (Fig.

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 and Cyrus (2000). The probe is not able

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

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

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.

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