The Effect of Data Acquisition-Probeware and Digital Video Analysis on Accurate Graphical Representation of Kinetics in a High School Physics Class

Abstract

The effects of two types of two well-established microcomputer-based teaching methods were examined for their effect teaching high school students kinetics. The use of data acquisition probeware and digital video analysis were studied for their impact on students’conceptions and ability to interpret graphical relationships to real world events. The abilities of high school physics students to accurately graph kinetics using distance, velocity and acceleration in one dimensional motion varied between and among the groups. Using a split category random assignment analysis students investigated these motions with both. In a quasi experimental fashion students received similar instruction on each but in a different sequence. Students received the similar teaching in reverse order and both strategies were found to be successful and complementary. There were indications student achievement was higher for velocity–time and acceleration-time graphs using the digital video analysis method. Implications for this study on teaching tools, methodologies, curriculum development, program implementation, and assessment are discussed.

Appendices

Appendix 1: (T1, T2, and T3 tests)

Conventions and Reminders

• (1) The origin represents “homebase.”

• (2) When observed from a spot perpendicular to the original direction of motion, positions to the right of homebase are considered positive.

• (3) For each motion described below, carefully sketch three graphs:

  • distance versus time

  • velocity versus time

  • acceleration versus time

• (4) For each motion rate how difficult it was for you to sketch the appropriate graphs. One (1) is for “very easy” and five (5) is for “very difficult.”

Motions

• A) An object starts at homebase, is initially motionless and remains motionless.

• B) An object starts at homebase and moves steadily to the right.

• C) An object starts at homebase and moves steadily to the left.

• D) An object starts to the right of homebase and moves steadily to the left.

• E) An object starts to the left of homebase and moves steadily to the right.

• F) An object starts to the right of homebase and moves steadily to the right.

• G) An object starts to the left of homebase and moves steadily to the left.

• H) Two objects start at homebase and both move steadily to the right. The black object moves faster than the blue object.

• I) Two objects start at homebase and both move steadily and at the same speed. The blue object moves to the left and the black object moves to the right.

• J) Two objects start in the same position to the right homebase. Both objects move steadily toward homebase—the black object moves faster than the blue object.

• K) A black object starts 1.0 m to the left of homebase and the blue object starts 2.0 m to the right. Both move steadily toward homebase. The blue is the first to arrive at homebase.

Appendix 2: Implementation Scheme

Three tests were taken (T1, T2, T3)

• Each test described eleven motion circumstances.

• For each motion, students were asked to sketch three graphs:

• Distance–time

• velocity–time

• acceleration–time

For each motion, students were also asked to rate how they perceived the complexity of the motion circumstance: least complex to most complex on a 1–5 scale.

Between tests, students examined the eleven motion situations using two methods:

• Digital acquisition probeware (MBL) from PASCO

• Digital video analysis (DVA) from Vernier

Group 1 (DVA followed by MBL)

$$ {\text{T1}} \to {\text{seven days}} \to {\text{DVA}} \to {\text{two days}} \to {\text{T2}} \to {\text{two days}} \to {\text{MBL}} \to {\text{three days}} \to {\text{T3}} $$

Group 2 (MBL followed by DVA)

$$ {\text{T1}} \to {\text{seven days}} \to {\text{MBL}} \to {\text{two days}} \to {\text{T2}} \to {\text{two days}} \to {\text{DVA}} \to {\text{three days}} \to {\text{T3}} $$

Appendix 3

See Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2 Significant changes in students scores for distance, velocity, and acceleration graphs and their composite total

Table 3 Complexity perception

Appendix 4

See Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Individual graphicacy for motion events. Distance versus Time

Appendix 5

See Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Individual Graphicacy for Motion Events. Velocity versus Time

Appendix 6

See Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Individual Graphicacy for Motion Events. Acceleration versus Time