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 IV
This study examined a problem with the sequence of the California State
Standards which expect eighth grade students to understand and calculate slope prior to
the exposure to the physical science curriculum. This expectation is based on the
assumption that students have previous experience with the mathematical concept of
slope. In fact, in the mathematics sequence, the concept of slope is not introduced to
math students until well into the algebra curriculum. Students who have developed their
abstract thinking skills and are competent in mathematics have no trouble with slope
regardless of prior instruction. Students who are just developing their abstract thinking
skill and/or poor in mathematics have a difficult time with the concept of slope.
This creates a knowledge gap when it is time for a middle school science teacher
to teach motion graphs. This study was conceived in response to observations by the
researcher after utilizing WISE 4.0, Graphing Stories and Vernier motion probes that
there was a change in student behavior when they learned how interpret position vs. time
graphs using those tools. This study attempted to quantify the degree of change when
using the combination of Graphing Stories and motion probes to teach motion graphs.
This combination of tools is considered to be an MBL approach, which refers to any
technique that connects a physical event to immediate graphic representation.
This study had similar outcomes to Brungardt and Zollman (1995) who found no
significant differences between learning with real-time and delay-time analysis, but did
notice that students using MBLs appeared to be more motivated and demonstrated more
discussion in their groups. The purpose of this study was to show that motion probe

3. usage, despite the knowledge gap, would help students interpret position vs. time graphs
better than the previous non-motion probe teaching techniques.
Study Outcomes
This study tested the hypothesis that students would 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. Two main research questions
guided the study:
• 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 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.
Even though the researcher had access to approximately 130 eighth grade
students, the experimental and control group samples could not be randomly assigned.
The only option was to utilize the fact that the students were separated into four classes
and create a convenience sample. This may have caused the samples to be slightly
biased.
The four classes were separated into two groups of two classes each, one group
was designated the motion probe users and other became the non-motion probe users.
The pre-test results found the groups to be similar in their position vs. time graph
knowledge. Both groups worked through the Graphing Stories lesson. The motion probe
users utilized the motion probes for several steps while the non motion users did not. The

4. post-test results also showed the groups to be similar in their position vs. time graph
knowledge.
Although the results did not show that an MBL approach increased student
understanding of graphing concepts, this result was consistent with the literature.
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). This statement was also reinforced by the data from the student survey. Most
students felt that motion probes increased engagement and were advantageous for
learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs.
As for the other three goals, this study was successful. The partnership between
UC Berkeley and MJHS is still in effect as of fall 2010. Every WISE 4.0 project run is
followed by an in depth interview about successes, failures and ideas to improve WISE
projects. The fact that students are engaged in self-discovery and create individual
motion graphs and stories helps reinforce the idea that Graphing Stories is an inquiry
based learning tool. The students who took part in this study expressed enthusiasm for
utilizing technology when the student survey showed that motion probes increased
engagement. The finding of the researcher are to similar to Vonderwall et al. (2005) who
found that all teachers report increased student motivation and excitement by using
technology to learn science concepts.
Proposed Audience, Procedures and Implementation Timeline
The idea for this study spawned from the problem that the California State
Standards assumes that eighth grade students understand slope prior to entering physical

5. science class. They are not taught slope until well into algebra class (currently eighth
grade math). In the fall 2009, the researcher was introduced to Graphing Stories and the
use of motion probes. An increase in student engagement and possibly an improved
method of teaching motion graphs was noticed. In spring 2010 the researcher enrolled in
the Educational Technology masters program at Touro University. A small bit of
searching revealed that the approach being applied by using computers and motion
probes was called Microcomputer Based Laboratory (MBL). More searching revealed
that most literature stated the MBL approach was beneficial yet none had proven it. The
researcher noticed such a change in student behavior during the fall 2009 that the MBL
approach must be useful. Graphing Stories provided the perfect balance of implementing
the MBL approach, inquiry based learning, technology usage and teaching student how to
interpret motion graphs. Data collection started in October 2010. Two groups of
approximately 60 students were given a pre-test. After the students worked through the
project a post-test was given. Finally, a student survey was given to test for student
perceptions on the motion probes. Although the data did not reveal the desired result of
having the MBL approach be directly beneficial, it has supported the general findings of
much of the research surrounding graphing misconceptions, probeware and motion
graphs. This study has contributed to the field of education buy reinforcing the idea that
teachers can utilize emerging technologies, like probeware, to encourage students to learn
difficult concepts like motion graphing with enthusiasm.
The new age of student as digital natives is causing teachers to search for new
way to engage students. There is overwhelming competition for adolescent attention
with cell phones and video games leading the way. Teachers who are willing to

6. incorporate technology into their tool box (digital immigrants) are better off than those
who are afraid. Digital immigrants are trying to improve an educational system that is no
longer designed to meet the needs of today’s students. The researchers (UC Berkeley and
Concord Consortium) involved with WISE 4.0 have expressed interest in the finding of
this thesis. The proposed audience includes any person involved with education who
wants to utilize technology to increase student understanding and enthusiasm for learning
science concepts.
Evaluation of the Study
As stated earlier, the 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. The overwhelming agreement of students who felt usage of motion probes was
engaging and advantageous must be an indicator that they work. Another study with a
larger sample size (n=1000) and spread over several years might reveal a desired result.
Since eighth grade students are still developing their abstract thinking skills, the study
might work better with high school or college students. It is not feasible to ask in-depth
motion graphing questions to someone with limited graphing experience. In order to get
an accurate representation of a student’s knowledge of position vs. time graphs it is
imperative to ask thorough rather than superficial questions. Another limitation arises
when considering that the space for motion probe usage is about four feet by ten feet.
The space requirements are particularly inconvenient because all furniture has to be
cleared away Murphy (2004). In large classes, this is nearly impossible. The motion
probe users in this study had a space of about two feet by seven feet. A future study

7. should include a larger sample size over a longer period, in-depth questioning and ample
space for motion probe usage.
Summary
In general, research has revealed both positive correlation and no correlation
between real-time graphing of a physical event and improved interpreting graph skills as
compared to traditional motion graph lessons. Substituting the MBL approach for
traditional motion graphing lesson appeared to have no effect on improved interpreting
graphing skills according to the results of this study. Even though no correlation was
found, the researcher will continue to utilize Graphing Stories and motion probes to
teaching motion graphing. Graphing Stories provided a perfect balance of inquiry-based
learning, technology and interpretation of position vs. time graphs. The student survey
reinforced the idea that technology in form of motion probes is helping the digital
immigrants to teach digital natives. Observing students work with motion probes
allowed the teacher to discover misconceptions that might go unnoticed like iconic
interpretation and slope/height confusion. Students walk out of the range of the motion
probe in an attempt to “draw” the picture that they think the graph represents. Students
also move slower, rather than faster, when they see a steeper slope because in reality the
steeper hill the slower you walk. A teacher unaware of these misconceptions will miss
the “teaching moment” when it arises.

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