Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 199–211 | Cite as

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



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.


Video analysis Probeware Kinematics High school Motion Graphs 


  1. Adams DD, Shrum JW (1990) The effects of microcomputer-based laboratory exercises on the acquisition of line graph construction and interpretation skills by high school biology students. J Res Sci Teach 22(8):777–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakhtin MM (1986) Speech genres and other late essays: Emerson C, Holquist M (eds) (trans: McGee VW). University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  3. Beichner RJ (1990) The effect of simultaneous motion presentation and graph generation in a kinematics lab. J Res Sci Teach 27(8):803–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell P, Davis EA, Linn MC (1995) The knowledge integration environment: theory and design. In: Proceedings of the computer supported collaborative learning conference (CSCL ‘95: Bloomington, IN) (pp. 14–21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  5. Bowen GM, Roth WM, McGinn K (1999) Interpretations of graphs by university biology students and practicing scientists: toward a social practice view of scientific representation practices. J Res Sci Teach 36(9):1020–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brasell H (1987) The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity. J Res Sci Teach 24(4):385–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brungardt JB, Zollman D (1995) Influence of interactive videodisc instruction using simultaneous-time analysis on kinematics graphing skills of high school physics students. J Res Sci Teach 32(8):855–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell JR, Hombo CM, Mazzeo J (2000) NAEP 1999 Trends in academic progress: three decades of student performance(NCES 2000-469).
  9. Eisele JE (1982) Instruction computing: computers and cognitive learning. Educ Technol 22:33–34Google Scholar
  10. Escalada LT, Zollman DA (1997) An investigation on the effects of using interactive digital video in a physics classroom on student learning and attitudes. J Res Sci Teach 34(5):467–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Furman M, Barton AC (2006) Capturing urban student voices in the creation on science mini-documentary. J Res Sci Teach 43(8):667–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gallagher JJ, Anderson CW (1999) Glimpse at our history as this century closes. J Res Sci Teach 36(10):1063–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gijlers H, Jong TD (2005) The relation between prior knowledge and students’ collaborative discovery learning process. J Res Sci Teach 42(3):264–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glenn J (2000) Before it’s too late: a report to the nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching. US Government, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Graef JL (1983) The computer connection. Sci Teach 50:42–47Google Scholar
  16. Kozma RB, Russell J (1997) Multimedia and understanding: expert and noice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. J Res Sci Teach 34(9):949–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lemke JL (2001) Articulating communities: sociocultural perspectives on science education, 38(3): 296–316Google Scholar
  18. Linn M, Layman J, Nachmias R (1987) Cognitive consequences of micro-computer-based laboratories: graphing skills development. Contemp Educ Psychol 12:244–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lockhead J (1980) The confounding of cause and effect, change and quantity. In: Robinson J (ed) Research in science education: new questions, new directions. Center for Educational Research and Evaluation, Lousiville, pp 73–84Google Scholar
  20. McDonald S, Songer NB (2008) Enacting classroom inquiry: theorizing teachers’ conceptions of science teaching. Sci Educ 92:973–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Metcalf SJ, Tinker RF (2004) Probeware and handhelds in elementary and middle school science. J Sci Educ Technol 13:43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mokros JR, Tinker RF (1987) The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children’s ability to interpret graphs. J Res Sci Teach 24(4):369–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. National Center for Education Statistics (2000) Mathematics and science in the eighth- grade. Findings from the third international mathematics and science study. Author, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  24. National Research Council (NRC) (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  25. Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2006). A Report and MILE Guide for 21st Century Skills. [Available at]
  26. Russell DW, Lucas KB, McRobbie CJ (2004) Role of the microcomputer-based laboratory display in supporting the construction of new understandings in thermal physics. J Res Sci Teach 41(2):165–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Scardamalia M, Bereiter C (1994) Computer support for knowledge-building communities. J Learn Sci 3(3):265–283 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, IncCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thornton R, Sokoloff D (1990) Learning Motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools. Am J Phys 58(9):858–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tobin K, Fraser BJ (1990) What does it mean to be an exemplary science teacher? J Res Sci Teach 27(1):3–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tobin K, Gallagher JJ (1987) What happens in high school science classrooms? J Curric Stud 19:549–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. National Center for Education Statistics;

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Williamston High SchoolWilliamstonUSA
  2. 2.State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations