Dig-ta Video, Learn-ng Styes, and Student Understanding of Kinematics Graphs

This study focused on student abil­ eluded student responses to various the statistical procedures also showed ity to analyze and interpret motion writing activities. Possible relation­ no significant relationship between graphs following laboratory instruction ships between individualleaming style students' learning style preferences using interactive digital video as well preferences and student understanding and their ability to interpret motion as traditional instructional techniques. of motion concepts were also ad­ graphs. After controlling for poten­ Particular attention was given to stu­ dressed. Learning style preferences tial differences in student ability lev­ dents' ability to construct and interpret were assessed using the Productivity els using SAT scores and course motion graphs. Two laboratory exer­ Environmental Preference Survey grades, a significant difference in cises involving motion concepts (i.e. (Price, G., Dunn, R., & Dunn, K., mean scores on the Test of Under­ freefal! and projectile motion) were 1991) prior to the instructional treat­ standing Graphs-Kinematics was ob­ developed for this study. Students were ments. Although analysis of covari­ served between males and females. divided into two instructional groups. ance statistical procedures revealed no The resulting mean score on the Test The students in the treatment group significant difference between instruc­ of Understanding Graphs-Kinematics used digital video techniques and stu­ tional treatment and student ability to was 10.19 for females and 12.77 for dents in the control group used tradi­ interpret motion graphs as measured males fEe J,42) =4.15, 12 =0.048]. In­ tional techniques to perform the labo­ by the Test of Understanding Graphs­ terestingly, males and females as sepa­ ratory exercises. Student understand­ Kinematics, the results of this study rate populations had similar mean SAT ing of motion concepts were assessed, show that the use of interactive digi­ scores and course grades. Additional in part, using the Test of U nderstand­ tal video tools can serve to increase studies regarding gender difference ing Graphs-Kinematics (Beichner, student motivation as well as encour­ are warranted. 1994). Other assessment measures inage longer time on task. Results of 1/2 May-August 2000 17 used in a pedagogically sound way (Kulik, 1994). Most importantly, close attention must be paid to the use of these tools in ways conducive with cognitive processes of how students learn and re­ tain information in physics. Embedded within this understanding of how students learn physics is the need to know how individual processing styles may affect learning. Since the early 1980s a considerable amount of research has been done in the area of students' learning of kinematics concepts in introductory physics classes and laboratories (Halloun & Hestenes, 1985; McDermott, 1991 b; McDermott, Rosenquist & van Zee, 1987; Rosenquist & McDermott, 1987; Thornton & Sokoloff, 1990; Trowbridge & McDermott, 1980; Van Heuvelen, 1991). Students' difficulty in grasping these con­ cepts even after taking the tradi tional physics courses is well documented. Trowbridge & McDermott (1981) have shown that students are often un­ able to discriminate between the concepts of position and velocity even after a con­ siderable amount of formal instruction in kinematics. McDermott, Rosenquist and van Zee (1987) looked at difficulties that students have in making connections be­ tween graphs and physics concepts and in making connections between graphs and the real world. These researchers found that when students were asked to produce a motion that is represented pic­ torially on a graph, they would essentially interpret the graph as a photograph of an event they had observed rather than a depiction of the motion characterized by the particular event. McDermott, Rosenquist and van Zee asserted that these various difficulties often go unnoticed during traditional in­ struction. In addition, these researchers have suggested that an ability to reverse one's thinking from real motion to graphi­ cal representation and from a graphical representation to real motion facilitates the construction of deeper understanding than that which is typically assessed in most traditional physics courses. Brasell (1990) addressed the issue of experts and novices and the apparent dif­ ferences in their ability to interpret graphs. Novice graphers appear to have difficulty in selecting the relevant features from a graph and are often unaware of the mathematical properties of graphs or their power to synthesize and integrate information. Expert graphers, Brasell found, are more able to process the sa­ lient features of a graph. In addition, ex­ pert graphers are typically able to appre­ ciate the functions of graphs in synthe­ sizing and integrating information and also in summarizing data. The use of interactive learning tools, such as computer simulations, tutorials, multimedia and computer-based tools, and video can provide students the op­ portunity to more effectively visualize real-world phenomena and engage in the process of scientific inquiry. In addition, these visual ization tools may provide the opportunity for students with diverse learning styles to learn physics more ef­ fectively. Multimedia and Computer-Based Tools ­ Graphical Construction and Interpretation Over the past decade, physics educa­ tion research has increasingly focused on the use of interactive multimedia tech­ niques in the classroom and laboratory. These techniques include the use of in­ teractive videodisc instruction (Brungardt & Zollman, 1995; Martorella, 1989, Zollman, 1997; Zollman & Fuller, ] 994) as well as interactive digital video (Chaudhury & Zollman, 1994; Escalada & Zollman, 1997; Escalada, Grabhorn & Zollman, 1996; Zollman, 1994). Other physics education researchers have stud­ ied students' understanding of motion concepts using computer-based labora­ tory techniques (Laws, 199 Ja; Thornton & Sokoloff, 1990). Still others have stud­ ied students' understanding of motion concepts using various video motion analysis software (Beichner, 1996; Brasell & Rowe, 1993). Brasell (1987) suggested that the si­ multaneous viewing of a motion event and its graphical representation might prove to be significant in terms of stu­ dent ability to process information. Beichner (1990) used real-time computer­ based experiments to allow students the opportunity to visualize as well as feel the connection between a physical event and the corresponding graphical presen­ tation. The students in Beichner's study were divided into two groups: a tradi­ tional group and a VideoGraph (Beichner, 1989) group. All students were involved with the analysis of the motion of a pro­ jectile. Students in the VideoGraph group viewed the replay of motion events in the form of a computer animation of video­ taped images. Previously taken strobo­ scopic photographs served as the source of data for students in the traditional labs. The experimental design for Beichner's study involved a two-way analysis of variance on post-test scores of the Test of Understanding Graphs-Kinematics. The covariate used was student scores on a pretest version of the Test of Understand­ ing Graphs-Kinematics. In his study, Beichner concluded that students who had viewed the motion events did not score significantly higher on the Test of Under­ standing GraphsKinematics. However, Beichner did find that males in the study scored significantly higher than females on both the pretest, F( I, 219) = 4.89, P = 0.028, and the posttest F( I, 219) = 6.07, P = 0.05. Brungardt and Zollman (1995) looked at student analysis of videodisc-recorded images with treatments over an extended period of time. Two treatment groups were used: a simultaneous-time group and a delayed-time group. The students in the simultaneous-time group viewed kine­ matics graphs on a computer screen si­ multaneously with the videodisc-recorded motion of an object on the video screen. The delayed-time students viewed the motion of the object on the screen and then, after a period of several minutes, viewed the corresponding kinematics graphs on a computer screen. Brungardt and Zollman made use of a post-test only, contrast group design in their investiga­ tion. The post-test used was the Ques­ tions on Linear Motion section of the test for Tools for Scientific Thinking (Center for Science and Mathematics Teaching, 1988). Results of their investigation showed that scores for students in the si­ multaneous-time group were higher than scores for students in the delayed-time group; however, the difference was not statistically significant. This result sug­ gests that the simultaneous viewing of kinematics graphs along with the corre­ sponding motion of an object on a video screen may lead to enhanced student Journal of SMET Education 18 motivation and increased understanding