This study investigated the use of motion probes to help middle school students learn position vs. time graphs. Two classes used motion probes as part of a WISE 4.0 project, while two control classes did not. Both groups took pre- and post-tests. Results showed a slight increase in post-test scores for both groups, with 37% of motion probe users demonstrating mastery vs. 34% of non-users. A student survey found that motion probe users felt the probes increased their engagement and understanding, while non-users believed the probes would be helpful for learning graphs.

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 III
The focus of this research was to explore the effect of using motion probes and
how they may increase student understanding of motion graphs. Middle school science
students need every advantage they can get in order to keep up with the mandated
California state curriculum. This study investigated the problem of graphing
misconceptions through a WISE 4.0 project called Graphing Stories that seamlessly
embedded the use of Vernier motion probes into a series of steps that teach students how
to interpret position vs. time graphs. This MBL experience allowed students to
simultaneously perform a motion and see an accurate position vs. time graph produced on
a computer screen. This program gave students an opportunity to learn graphing
concepts by the nature of its design. Students started with a firm foundation provided to
them by reviewing position and motion, were given significant practice through the use
of the program and were required to take part in several forms of assessment. Observing
multiple classes of students while using the Graphing Stories program and the motion
probes, revealed that simply using this MBL type approach may not be enough to change
how students learn motion graphing. 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). Others suggested that the MBL approach works
only if the technology is used correctly. This study tested the hypothesis of whether
students gain a better understanding of graphing concepts after working with Vernier
motion probes and Graphing Stories than the students who work without the motion
probes.

3. Through the design of their curriculum, the science teacher guides students into a
cognitive process of discovery through experimentation. Piaget’s (1952) learning theory
of constructivism reinforced this idea by suggesting that a person’s “real” world
manifests itself through a combination of all the events a person has experienced.
Teachers must ensure students do not fill the gaps of knowledge with incorrect thoughts
while learning from a “self-discovery” lesson. This idea of experimentation and “self
discovery” is known as inquiry-based learning which builds on the pedagogy of
constructivism. Inquiry-based learning, when authentic, complements the constructivist
learning environment because it allows the individual student to tailor their own learning
process (Kubieck, 2005). Motion probe usage involves students in an inquiry-based
learning process.
The literature suggested that there are benefits, Chiappetta (1997) and Colburn
(2005), and problems, Deters (2005), with inquiry-based learning. In Deters, teachers
gave reasons for not using inquiry: loss of control, safety issues, use more class time, fear
of abetting student misconceptions, spent more time grading labs and students have many
complaints. Even though many teachers were reluctant to incorporate inquiry-based
lessons into their curriculum, it was suggested that they may only need to utilize them a
few times to be beneficial. Again in Deters, if students perform even a few inquiry-based
labs each year throughout their middle school and high school careers, by graduation they
will be more confident, critical-thinking people who are unafraid of “doing science”. The
proposed study attempted to teach students how to interpret graphs utilizing an inquiry-
based strategy in computer-supported environment.

4. To be successful in science, especially physics, it is imperative that students
understand how to connect graphs to physical concepts and connecting graphs to the real
world. Since students consistently exhibit the same cognitive difficulty with graphing
concepts, teachers must incorporate the strategies stated in the interpreting graphs section
of Chapter 2 into their curriculum, like giving students a variety of graphing situations
and choosing words carefully. The proposed study utilized probeware in the form of
Vernier motion probes to help combat the difficulties of interpreting graphs. Metcalf and
Tinker (2004) did warn that in order for probeware to be successful, teachers must be
properly trained their usage.
Background and Development of the Study
Year after year, students come into the science classroom without the proper
cognitive tools for learning how to interpret graphs. Few students know what the
mathematical term slope is let alone how to calculate slope. Luckily adolescents are
developing their abstract thinking skills and learning slope is not a problem. One major
issue at work here is that the curriculum materials adopted by MJHS assume that eighth
grade students already know slope concepts. District mandated pacing guides allow no
time for teaching the concept of slope. This study proposed that utilizing probeware,
like Vernier motion probes, might equalize the cognitive tools the between the students. .
Nicolaou, Nicolaidou, Zacharias, & Constantinou (2007) stated that real-time graphing,
made possible by data logging software, helps to make the abstract properties being
graphed behave as though they were concrete and manipulable. It was hoped that the
experience of using the motion probes and the software would also allow more time to
address graphing misconceptions.

5. At the time of this study, WISE 4.0 was new technology which seemed to have a
promising future. The unique partnership of UC Berkeley (home of the WISE project)
and the middle school site allowed teachers at the middle school to implement WISE 4.0
curriculum without additional funds. UC Berkeley provided laptops computers, a wifi
router, probeware and graduate and post-graduate researchers for support.
WISE 4.0 Graphing Stories was first available for use in fall 2009. Eighth grade
physical science students at the middle school research site were among the first students
to participate in this innovative program. Teachers using the program immediately took
notice of increased student engagement with the program and the motion probes. In
2009, teachers did not compare results of students utilizing motion probes with students
who did not. However, there was a general perception that motion probe usage was
beneficial. The purpose of this study was to scientifically document whether this
perception was accurate.
Components of the Study
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 come several secondary objectives which
include: 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.
One purpose of technology is to improve the quality of our lives. This includes
improving the way teachers provide access to information for students. Today’s students

6. are digital natives (Prensky, 2001) and have enthusiasm for technology. The MBL
approach was developed in the 1980’s with the invention of microcomputers, which is
considered old technology today. The microcomputer-based laboratory utilized a
computer, a data collection interface, electronic probes, and graphing software, allowing
students to collect, graph, and analyze data in real-time. Use of MBL would seem to be a
natural way to engage digital learners yet, it appears that this idea has not really caught
on even though many agree that it is successful. Two reasons may be preventing its
usage:
1. It is expensive to set-up a MBL.
2. Teachers are not properly trained in and are not asked to implement an MBL
approach.
Research has not proven that an MBL approach is superior to traditional methods.
The idea that technology is a valuable learning tool was supported by the literature
surrounding the use of the MBL approach or probeware. In general, research suggested
that MBL is helpful, but did not prove its benefits.
Metcalf and Tinker (2004) suggested that the cost of probeware is part of the
reason why more teachers are not using them. The secondary objective of utilizing the
unique opportunity of the partnership between UC Berkeley and Martinez Junior High
School negates the issue of cost. WISE 4.0 has been funded by a series of grants written
by Marcia Linn, the senior researcher for the WISE project. WISE 4.0 Graphing Stories,
a free program accessible through wise4.telscenter.org, is considered to be an inquiry-
based learning tool.

7. Inquiry-based learning is often considered the goal of science instruction. The
secondary teaching objective to reinforce the idea that the project Graphing Stories as an
inquiry based learning tool and utilize students’ enthusiasm for technology came about
because of this method of delivery. Strategies and techniques that are used by successful
science teachers include: asking questions, science process skills, discrepant events,
inductive and deductive activites, information gathering and problem solving (Chiappeta,
1997). These strategies, provided through Graphing Stories, indirectly push students into
learning science concepts through self-discovery. The motion probe and accompaning
software encouraged students to move around and create personalized position vs. time
graphs as many times as they pleased. This teaching objective was measured by asking
students to report on their perception of how motion probes affected their engagement.
Methodology
This study examined whether the use of Vernier motion probes and related
software increased student understanding of position vs. time graphs. Since the
researcher taught 4 eighth grade classes, it was decided to utilize a convenience sample
for this study. Data collection took place from October 7-14, 2010. Two classes (n =
64) were the control group; meaning that they did not use motion probes. The other two
classes (n = 61) used the motion probes and related software. All classes were given a
pre and post-test and a post-instructional survey. The pre-test was administered prior to
implementing WISE 4.0 Graphing Stories. All classes worked through the project, which
took 5 -50 minute sessions. Several steps in the project asked students to utilize motion
probes. The control group was asked to complete a task that that did not involve the
motion probe. This allowed for both groups to have different graphing experiences but

8. be engaged an equal amount of time. The post-test was given after both groups
completed Graphing Stories. The purpose of collecting qualitative data from the student
survey, Student Perceptions of Motion Probes (see Appendix B), was to get a sense of
students’ opinions regarding the use of motion probes when they learn how to graph
motion. It was hoped that both motion probe users and non motion probe users would
feel that motion probe usage increased student engagement.
Sequence of events.
1. All students given a pre-test (see Appendix A)
2. All students participated in Graphing Stories exercise in which they are given
a graph and a story that matches
a. Experimental group used Vernier motion probes to test their
prediction of how the graph was created in real time
b. Control group did not do this step
3. All students asked to write a personal story involving motion and to create a
matching position vs. time graph
a. Experimental group used Vernier motion probes to test their
prediction of how the graph was created in real time
b. Control group did not do this step
4. All students given a post-test (see Appendix A)
5. All students given the student survey, Student Perceptions of Motion Probes
(see Appendix B)
The pre-test (Appendix A) consisted of twelve questions that asked students to
draw various simple position vs. time graphs. The post-test (Appendix A) consisted of

9. the same twelve questions as the pre-test plus a graph depicting a race followed by six
questions that tested for understanding.
Results
In Figures 5 and 6, the motion probe users were compared to non motion probe
users. Figure 5 shows a frequency distribution of the scores all students earned on the
pre-test. The scores were grouped into ten percent intervals. The range of scores on the
pre-test was from 12.5% to 100%. Of the motion probe users, 10% had already mastered
the interpretation of position vs. time graphs as compared to12% of the non motion probe
users.
Figure 6 shows a frequency distribution of the scores all students earned on the
post-test. The score were again grouped into ten percent intervals. The range of scores
on the post-test was from 6% to 100%. Of the motion probe users, 37% had mastered the
interpretation of position vs. time graphs as compared to 34% of the non motion probe
users. Since the pre-tests were given anonymously, it was impossible to present the data
in matched pairs. Unexpectedly, one student from each group performed at a lower level
than they had in the pre-test.

10. Pre-Test Scores
motion probe user non motion probe user
25
23 23
20
number of students
15
13
12
10
8
7
6 6 6
5 5 5
5
2 2 2
1 1 1 1
0
0
0-9% 19-10% 29-20% 39-30% 49-40% 59-50% 69-60% 79-70% 89-80% 100-90%
test scores
Figure 5. Frequency distribution of the pre-test scores
Non motion probe users n = 64; motion probe users n = 61
Post-Test Scores
motion probe user non motion probe user
14
12 12
12
11
10 10 10 10
10
number of students
8
8
7 7
6 6
6
4 4
4
3
2 2
2
1
0 0
0
0-9% 19-10% 29-20% 39-30% 49-40% 59-50% 69-60% 79-70% 89-80% 100-90%
test scores
Figure 6. Frequency distribution of the post-test scores
Non motion probe users n = 67; motion probe users n = 62

11. Tables 1, 2 and 3 show the frequency distribution of student responses to the
survey questions regarding the usefulness of motion probes, motion probes and student
engagement and the advantage of motion probes.
Table 1
Frequency Distribution of Responses to the Questions Regarding the Usefulness of
Motion Probes.
made it
Would more
not be difficult
able to for motion
learn probe
without very not users to
them helpful helpful helpful learn
Question 1 MOTION PROBE USER
Motion probe user: How useful do you
think the motion probes were in
helping you learn about position vs.
time graphs? 5 20 37 1 0
Question 7 NON-MOTION PROBE
USER NOT a motion probe user:
How useful do you think using the
motion probes is for learning how to
interpret position vs. time graphs?
Remember you are making a judgment
for those who actually used them. 1 15 47 8 1
totals for both groups 6 35 84 9 1

12. Table 2
Frequency Distribution of Responses to the Questions Regarding Motion Probes and
Student Engagement.
motion motion motion
motion probes probes did probes
probes made made the not made the
the lesson lesson necessarily lesson
something to more engage less
remember engaging them engaging
Question 4 MOTION PROBE
USER Motion probe user: Did
using motion probes help you
become more engaged in the
learning process? 11 45 5 0
Question 10 NON-MOTION
PROBE USER NOT a motion
probe user: Do you think using
motion probes made the lesson
more engaging for the student who
used them? 6 35 13 0
totals for both groups 17 80 18 0
Table 3
Frequency Distribution of Responses to the Questions Regarding the Advantage of a
Motion Probe.
no do not
advantage advantage know
Question 5 MOTION PROBE
USER Motion probe user: Do you
feel you had an advantage over the
students who did not utilize the
motion probes in learning how to
interpret position vs. time graphs?
Please explain 52 8 0
Question 11 NON-MOTION
PROBE USER NOT a motion probe
user: Do you feel students who used
the motion probes had an advantage
over the students who did not utilize
the motion probes in learning how to
interpret position vs. time 42 11 1
totals for both groups 94 19 1

13. The data from the survey entitled, Student Perceptions of Motion Probes, revealed the
following preceptions of motion probes:
• 93% (125/135) of the students felt the motion probe was useful (motion probe
users) or thought it would be useful (non motion probe users) for learning about
position vs. time graphs, and 7% (10/135) felt the motion probe was not useful.
• 84% (97/115) of the students felt the motion probe made the lesson more
engaging, and 16% (18/115) felt the motion probe made the lesson either not
engaging or less engaging.
• 83% (94/113) of the students felt the motion probe users had an advantage over
non motion probe users in learning how to interpret position vs. time graphs, and
17% (19/113) felt there was no advantage.
Analysis
The unpaired t-test was used to compare the motion probe users and the non
motion probe users groups for both the pre and post-test. The unpaired t-test was chosen
because the sample sizes between the groups were not equal.
Results of the pre-test. There was no significant difference between the motion
probe users and the non motion probe users in initial knowledge of how to interpret
position vs. time graphs (t = 1.3256, d.f. = 123, P = 0.1874 p = .05). This result supported
the desired outcome of having the two groups start with equal understanding of position
vs. time graphs.
Results of the post-test. The post-test results showed no significant difference
between the motion probe users and the non motion probe users (t = 0.6595, d.f. = 127, P

14. = 0.5107 p = .05) in knowledge of how to interpret position vs. time graphs. This result
did not give results to support the desired outcome of having the two groups end with
unequal understanding of position vs. time graphs, i.e. the group that used the motion
probes was expected to perform better. The researcher must accept the null hypothesis
which states that students will not 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.
Results of student survey. Although the pre and post-test results suggested that
an MBL approach does not necessarily increase student understanding of graphing
concepts, the student survey, Student Perceptions of Motion Probes(see Appendix B), did
help answer the research question regarding motion probe usage and student engagement.
The answers given by both the motion probe and non motion probes users clearly
demonstrated that motion probe usage was beneficial in terms of increasing student
engagement when working with position vs. time graphs.
An informal review of students’ actions while utilizing the motion probes
revealed valuable insight to how they view position vs. time graphs. Similar to Lapp and
Cyrus (2000), students did not understand the information the graph was presenting (Fig.
7). Instead of moving back and forth along a straight line to produce a graph that
matched the distance time information given, students typically walked in a path that
resembled the shape of the original graph, Lapp and Cyrus (2000). The probe is not able
to detect the path of motion many students tried to follow (Fig. 8).

15. Figure 7. Distance Time Graph for Student Investigation. Reprinted from D. Lapp & V.
Cyrus (2000). Using Data-Collection Devices to Enhance Students’ Understanding.
Mathematics Teacher, 93(6) p. 504.
Figure 8. Path of Walker. Reprinted from D. Lapp & V. Cyrus (2000). Using Data-
Collection Devices to Enhance Students’ Understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93(6) p.
504.
Summary
The responsibility of teaching eighth grade students how to interpret position vs.
time graphs has been slowed by a significant hurdle. The California State Standards

16. assumes that eighth grade students know how to interpret and calculate slope. It is
considered an abstract concept and not taught until well into the algebra curriculum.
Many students do not even take Algebra until high school. Physical science curriculum
requires students to understand slope prior to it being taught how to graph motion.
Working with UC, Berkeley, MJHS teachers have been lucky to utilize WISE 4.0,
specifically Graphing Stories. The researcher discovered a new technology (Graphing
Stories and Vernier motion probes) and decided to use it. Even though research of the
MBL approach has failed to prove its worth, many still claim it to be beneficial provided
that it is used correctly. This study was based on the hypothesis that motion probes usage
would help students interpret position vs. time graphs better than student who did not use
motion probes. 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.

17. 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

18. 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.
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

19. 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.
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

20. 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.
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

21. 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.
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.

22. 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.
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/

23. WISE – Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (1998-2010). Graphing Stories.
Retrieved fall 2010 from http://wise4.telscenter.org/webapp/vle/preview.html?
projectId=17