1. 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

2. Chapter I
Middle school teachers always search for new, exciting ways to engage their
adolescent audience. International comparison research showed that although U.S.
fourth-grade students compare favorably, eighth-grade students fall behind their foreign
peers, particularly in their mastery of complex, conceptual mathematics, a cause for
concern about the preparation of students for careers in science (Roschelle et al., 2007).
Producing and interpreting position vs. time graphs is particularly difficult because they
have little to no prior knowledge on the subject. Nicolaou, Nicolaidou, Zacharias, &
Constantinou (2007) claimed that despite the rhetoric that is promoted in many
educational systems, the reality is that most science teachers routinely fail to help
students achieve a better understanding of graphs at the elementary school level.
There is also a knowledge gap that has developed between the students who are in
algebra and students who are not. Algebra students have experience with coordinates,
slope, rate calculations and linear functions. By the time motion lessons begin many
students have had zero experience with linear graphs which make it nearly impossible for
them to interpret. When introducing motion a considerable amount of time is spent with
rate and speed calculations. Algebra students excel and the others struggle. Without
understanding rate and proportionality, students cannot master key topics and
representations in high school science, such as laws (e.g., F= ma, F = -kx), graphs (e.g.,
of linear and piecewise linear functions), and tables (Roschelle et al., 2007). By sparking
their interest with technology, the knowledge gap between students regarding graphing
concepts should be reduced by the time they reach high school.

3. Statement of the Problem
After teaching for several years, the researcher came to the conclusion that in
order for students to understand graphing concepts and combat graphing misconceptions,
they must start with a firm foundation, practice and be assessed often. Both the degree of
understanding and the retention of this knowledge seemed to diminish only after a short
period of time when taught with traditional paper/pencil techniques. The researcher
chose to concentrate on utilizing motion probes with simultaneous graphing via computer
software because it is anticipated that this hands-on approach will provide a solid
foundation which in turn will reinforce knowledge retention. Sokoloff, Laws and
Thornton (2007) stated that students can discover motion concepts for themselves by
walking in front of an ultrasonic motion sensor while the software displays position,
velocity and/or acceleration in real time. Simply using this MBL type approach may not
be enough. 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). Lapp and Cyrus (2000) warn that although the literature suggested
benefits from using MBL technology, we must also consider problems that arise if we do
not pay attention to how the technology is implemented. Bryan (2006) stated a general
“rule of thumb” is that technology should be used in the teaching and learning of science
and mathematics when it allows one to perform investigations that either would not be
possible or would not be as effective without its use.

4. Background and Need
Much of the research suggested an improvement in student understanding of
graphing using the MBL approach; yet warn how the technique is implemented. The
MBL approach refers to any technique that connects a physical event to immediate
graphic representation. Some studies indicate that without proper precautions, technology
can become an obstacle to understanding (Bohren, 1988; Lapp, 1997; Nachmias and
Linn, 1987). Beichner compared how a motion reanimation (video) with “real” motion
and simultaneous graphing. Beichner (1990) stated that Brasell (1987) and others have
demonstrated the superiority of microcomputer-based labs, this may indicate that visual
juxtaposition is not the relevant variable producing the educational impact of the real-
time MBL. Bernard (2003) reluctantly suggested that technology leads to better learning.
Bernard advocated that it is important to focus on the cognitive aspects as well as the
technical aspects. Although many researchers could not find conclusive evidence to say
that MBL techniques improve student understanding of graphing concepts, the researcher
believed that most would agree that it does. This study attempted to show that the MBL
approach works.
This study will also bring to light the general need for students to utilize
developing technologies which in turn prepares them for future uncreated jobs.
Roschelle, et al. (2000) stated that schools today face ever-increasing demands in their
attempts to ensure that students are well equipped to enter the workforce and navigate a
complex world. Roschelle, et al. indicated that computer technology can help support
learning, and that it is especially useful in developing the higher-order skills of critical
thinking, analysis, and scientific inquiry.

5. Purpose of the Study
Luckily, students are somewhat enthusiastic about technology. This energy can
be harnessed by utilizing the technology of WISE 4.0 (Web Inquiry Based Environment)
and the Vernier motion probe in order to test if an MBL approach increased student
understanding of position vs. time graphs. The researcher is responsible for teaching
approximately 160 eighth grade students force and motion. WISE is the common
variable in a partnership between a public middle school in Northern California (MJHS)
and UC Berkeley. UC Berkeley has provided software, Vernier probes, Macintosh
computers and support with WISE 4.0. This unique opportunity to coordinate with
researchers from UC Berkeley is one reason this study was chosen. The other reason was
to prove that Graphing Stories is a valuable learning tool. Graphing Stories embedded
this MBL approach without making it the soul purpose of the project. Students are
immersed in a virtual camping trip that involves encountering a bear on a hiking trip.
Graphing Stories seamlessly supports the Vernier motion probe and software allowing
students to physically walk and simultaneously graph the approximate motion of the hike.
An added bonus is that students can instantly share their graph with other students who
are working on the project at the same time.
This study tested the hypothesis that students will 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. Both groups took a pre-test and a
post-test. The researcher statistically compared the difference in the results between the
pre and post-tests of the same group and the difference in results between the post-tests of

6. each group. The data collection portion of the project took approximately 7 school days
to complete.
Research Questions
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 came several secondary goals which included:
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.
The hypothesis as stated in the purpose of the project section above addressed the
research question regarding how the MBL approach increases students understanding of
graphing concepts. A student survey named Student Perception on Use of Motion Probes
helped to answer the research question regarding how motion probes increase student
engagement.
Definition of Terms
Graphing stories: a WISE 4.0 project that helps students understand that every graph has
a story to tell (WISE – Web-based Inquiry Science Environment, 1998-2010).
MBL: microcomputer-based laboratory. The microcomputer-based laboratory utilizes a
computer, a data collection interface, electronic probes, and graphing software, allowing
students to collect, graph, and analyze data in real-time (Tinker, 1986).

7. Vernier motion probes: a motion detector that ultrasonically measures distance to the
closest object and creates real-time motion graphs of position, velocity and acceleration
(Vernier Software and Technology, n.d.).
WISE: Web-based Inquiry Science Environment is a free online science learning
environment supported by the National Science Foundation (WISE – Web-based Inquiry
Science Environment, 1998-2010).
Summary
The MBL approach has a positive effect on students’ understanding of graphing
concepts if used correctly. According the NSTA (1999), “Microcomputer Based
Laboratory Devices (MBL's) should be used to permit students to collect and analyze
data as scientists do, and perform observations over long periods of time enabling
experiments that otherwise would be impractical. It was hoped that students who use
Vernier motion probes in connection with Graphing Stories will show a deeper
understanding of graphic concepts than students who did not use the motion probes. This
study reinforced the unique relationship between UC Berkeley and MJHS. The use of
technology will lessen the knowledge gap between algebra and non-algebra students and
their graphing skills. In general, research suggested that technology is not a panacea and
needs to be accompanied by thoughtful planning and meaningful purpose.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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