INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.
Uni ver si t y Microfil ms I nt er nat i onal
A Beil & Howell I nf or mat i on C o mp a n y
3 0 0 Nor t h Z e e b Roa d. Ann Ar bor. Ml 48 1 0 6 - 1 3 4 6 USA
313-' 761- 4700 8 0 0 5 21 - 0 6 0 0
Order Number 91S0457
A concept learning and teaching approach to t h e instruction of
linear motion in introductory college physics
Chyuan, Jong-pyng Michael, Ph.D.
The Ohio State University, 1991
UMI
300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Aibor, MI 48106
A CONCEPT LEARNING AND TEACHING APPROACH TO THE
INSTRUCTION OF LINEAR MOTION
IN
INTRODUCTORY COLLEGE PHYSICS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
By
Jong-pyng Michael Chyuan, B.S., M.S.
* * * * *
The Ohio State University
1991
Dissertation Committee:
Dr. Arthur L. White
Dr. William D. Ploughe
Dr. Keith A. Hall
Approved by
College of Education
To my parents, my wife, and my son
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
X wish to express my deep gratitude to Dr. Arthur L.
White for his enthusiastic and expert guidance throughout
this research project. The completion of this dissertation
would not have been possible without support.
Sincere appreciation and thanks is expressed to Dr.
William D. Ploughe for sharing his knowledge and experience
teaching physics and for generously implementing the three
teaching methods in his physics 101 classes.
I would also like to thank Dr. Keith A. Hall for his
valuable counsel and thoughtful suggestions throughout this
research project.
Finally, my deep appreciation and thanks to a dear
friend and colleague, Evelyn Zeifman Becker, for her
patience and help in editing manuscript.
iii
VITA
November 13, 1952 ........... Born - Taiwan,
Republic of China
1974 ......................... B.S., National Taiwan Normal
University, Taiwan, Republic
of China
1974-1975 ................... Teaching Assistant,
Provincial Tainan Teachers
Co11ege, Ta iwan, ROC
1979 ......................... M.S., National Taiwan Normal
University, Taiwan, Republic
of China
1979-1980 ................... Instructor
National Defense Medicine
College, Taiwan, ROC
1979-1987 ................... Instructor
Provincial Taipei Teachers
College, Taiwan, ROC
1987-present ................. Associate Professor,
Taipei Teachers College,
Taiwan, ROC
1987-1988 . . . Director of Computer Center
Taipei Teachers College
Taiwan, ROC
1990-present ................. Graduate Research Associate
The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, USA
PUBLICATIONS
Chyuan, J. M. (1979). The growth and the analysis of Cu-Zn
alloy crystal. Unpublished masters thesis, National
Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Chyuan, J. M. (1980). Physics of Matter, Temperature and
Heat (chapter 6, 7). In J. Chou (Ed.), Teachers College
Phvsics (I). Taipei: Cheng-jong Book Company.
iv
Chyuan, J. M. (1981). Waves and sound, Optics, Electricity
and Magnetism, Electromagnetism, Modern Physics (chapter
8, 9, 10, 11, 12). In J. Chou (Ed.), Teachers College
Physics (II). Taipei: Cheng-jong Book company.
Chyuan, J. M. (1984). Water and energy. In T. Li (Ed.),
Children Natural Science Research and Study Curriculum and
Development (I). Taipei: Taipei Teachers College.
Chyuan, J. M. (1985). The analysis and research of primary
school natural science learning adaptation's problem in
Taipei area. Taipei: Jong-shing Publishing.
Chyuan, J. M. (1985). Energy and soil. In M. Kou (Ed.),
Children Natural Science Research and Study Curriculum and
Development (II). Taipei: Taipei Teachers College.
Chyuan, J. M. (1986). Energy and soil. In J. Chen (Ed.),
Children Natural Science Research and Study Curriculum and
Development (III). Taipei: Taipei Teachers College.
Chyuan, J. M. (1987). Energy and soil. In J. M. Chyuan
(Ed.), Childrerr-i'Jatural Science Research and Study Curricu
lum and Development (IV^. Taipei: Taipei Teachers College.
Chyuan, J. M. (1988). Taipei teachers college entrance
examination information system (EEIS). In J. M. Chyuan
(Ed.), Computer Education Symposium of Teachers colleges
in Taiwan Area (pp. 97 - 129). Taipei: Taipei Teachers
College.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Education
Studies in Science Education: Dr. Arthur White,
Dr. Victor Mayer, Dr. Patricia Blosser.
Studies in Educational Research: Dr. Arthur White,
Dr. Keith Hall, Dr. John Kennedy.
Studies in Technology in Science: Dr. William Ploughe.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................... iii
V I T A ..................................................... iv
LIST OF T A B L E S ........................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................... xii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION .................................. 1
Need for Study ................................ 3
Statement of the Problem ...................... 6
Definition of Terms ............................ 8
Assumptions.......................................10
Delimitations.................................. 10
Limitations.................................... 11
II. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................... 13
Misconception .................................. 13
Concept Definition ............................ 20
Concept Learning .............................. 22
Concept M a p .......................................26
Teaching Concept .............................. 32
Concept Teaching Model ........................ 39
General Instruction Model 4 6
vi
III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES ............................ 50
Design ............................................. 50
Sample and Population ........................... 59
Instrumentation .................................. 65
Research Design .................................. 80
Analysis ...........................................85
Procedures .........................................86
IV. R E S U L T S ............................................. 90
Cognitive Learning Effect ....................... 90
Cognitive Teaching Effect ....................... Ill
Learning Physics Attitude Effect ............... 116
Multivariate Regression Effect ................. 121
S u m m a r y ............................................ 137
V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 139
Summary of Findings ......................... 139
Discussion ........................................142
Summary and Interpretation ..................... 149
Specific Instructional Recommendations ........ 154
Future Research .................................. 159
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................... 162
APPENDICES
A. Physics Concept Instruction Design ............. 169
B. Physics Concept Map T e s t .......................... 221
C. Physics Misconception T e s t ........................ 226
D. Physics Achievement T e s t .......................... 231
E. Physics Attitude Test .............................236
F. Course Copies for the Concept Teaching Method . . 246
G. Students' Constructed Concept Maps ............. 255
H. Frequency Distribution for Items of the Physics
Misconception Test and the Physics Attitude Test. 258
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Univariate ANOVA on the Physics Misconception
Pretest by Retained/Deleted Group ............. 61
2. Distribution by Gender among Three Classes . . . 62
3. Distribution by Program Areas among three Groups. 62
4. Distribution by Age among Three Classes . . . . 63
5. Distribution by High School Physics Chemistry Course
among Three Classes ............................ 64
6. Items of the Achievement Test by Knowledge Level. 70
7. Means, Standard Deviations, and Item-Total
Correlations for the Physics Learning Concept
Attitude Test .................................. 74
8. Means, Standard Deviations, and Item-Total
Correlations for the Physics Misconception Attitude
T e s t ............................................ 75
9. Means, Standard Deviations, and Item-Total
Correlations for the Physics Teaching Concept
Attitude Test .................................. 76
10. Means, Standard Deviations, and Item-Total
Correlations for the Physics Concept Map Attitude
Test .......................................... 77
11. The Mode of Physics Instruction ............... 82
12. Sample Size, Means, and Standard Deviations of the
Physics Concept Map Pretest and Posttest, Physics
Misconception Pretest and Posttest, and Physics
Achievement Test among Three Groups ........... 92
viii
13. Multivariate Tests of Regression Effect for the
Relationship between Dependent Variables, Physics
Concept Map Posttest, Physics Misconception Posttest,
and Physics Achievement Test, and Covariates, Physics
Concept Map Pretest and Physics Misconception
Pretest.......... 93
14. Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Covariance:
Treatment Effect on the Concept Map Posttest, the
Misconception Posttest, and the Achievement Test
with the Concept Map Pretest and the Misconception
Pretest as Covariates ......................... 95
15. Bryant-Paulson Comparisons on Physics Concept Map
T e s t ............................................ 96
16. Test of Significance for Discriminant Functions
about Dependent Variables: Physics Misconception
Posttest, Physics Concept Map Posttest, and Physics
Achievement T e s t ................................ 98
17. Canonical Discriminant Functions Evaluated at
Group Centroids of the Physics Misconception
Posttest, the Physics Concept Map Posttest, and the
Physics Achievement Test ........................ 99
18. Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients of
Dependent Variables ............................. 100
19. Sample Size, Means, and Standard Deviations of the
Proposition, Hierarchy, Cross-Link, and Example of
the Concept Map Posttest among Three Groups . . 102
20. Multivariate Tests of Regression Effect for the
Relationship between Dependent Variables, Four
Parts of the Concept Map Test, and Covariates,
Concept Map Pretest and Misconception Pretest . . 103
21. Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Covariance:
Treatment Effect on the Concept Map Posttest with the
Physics Concept Map Pretest and the Physics
Misconception Pretest as Covariates .......... 104
22. Bryant-Paulson Comparisons on the Proposition of the
Physics Concept Map T e s t ..........................106
ix
23. Bryant-Paulson Comparisons on the Hierarchy of the
Physics Concept Map T e s t .......................... 106
24. Test of Significance for Discriminant Functions
about Dependent Variables: Proposition, Hierarchy,
Cross-Link, and Example of the Concept Map Test . 107
25. Canonical Discriminant Functions Evaluated at
Group Centroids of the Concept Map Test . . . . 109
26. Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients
of Dependent Variables ......................... 110
27. Multivariate Tests of the Effect of Concept Map
and Misconception Pre-Post-Tests and the Effect
of Group by Pre-Post-Tests....................113
28. Within-Subject Effect on Misconception Test . . 114
29. Within-Subject Effect on Concept Map Test . . . 114
30. Means and Standard Deviations of Four Attitude
Tests ............................................. 118
31. Multivariate Tests of Regression Effect for the
Relationship between Dependent Variables, Four
Attitude Subtests, and Covariates, Concept Map
Pretest and Misconception Pretest ............. 119
32. Multivariate Analysis of Covariance: Treatment
Group Effect Test of Four Parts of the Concept
Map P o s t t e s t .................................. 119
33. Means of the Physics Attitude T e s t ............120
34. Correlation of the Dependent Variables and the
Predictors for the Traditional Teaching Method
(Group 1) 126
35. Canonical Correlation, Coefficients, and Components
for Each Canonical Variate for the Group 1 . . . 127
x
36. Multivariate Regression Analysis of the Relation
between the Concept Map Posttest, Misconception
Posttest, and Achievement Test, and the Four Attitude
Subtests for the Traditional Teaching Method . . 128
37. Univariate F-Test of the Dependent Variables for
the Traditional Teaching Method ............... 128
38. Multiple Regression Test on the Traditional
Teaching Method ................................ 129
39. Correlation of the Dependent Variables and the
Predictors for the Example-Nonexample
Teaching Method (Group 2) 130
40. Canonical Correlation Multivariate Regression
Analysis of the Relation between the Concept Map
Posttest, Misconception Posttest, and Achievement
Test, and the Four Attitude Subtests for the
Example-Nonexample Teaching Method (Group 2) . . 131
41. Correlation of the Dependent Variables and the
Predictors for the Concept Teaching Method
(Group 3 ) ...........................................132
42. Canonical Correlation, Coefficients, and Components
for Each Canonical Variate for the Group 3 . . . 133
43. Multivariate Regression Analysis of the relation
between the Concept Map Posttest, Misconception
Posttest, and Achievement Test, and the Four Attitude
Subtests, for the concept Teaching Method . . . 134
44. Univariate F-Test of the Dependent Variables for
the Concept Teaching Method .................. 134
45. Multiple Regression Test on the Concept Teaching
M e t h o d ............................................. 135
46. The Overall Significant Correlation of the
Dependent Variables and the Predictors Relating
Group 1, 2, and 3 136
47. Summary of the Significant Results in This Study. 137
48. Concepts Taught in the Three Lecture Sessions . . 156
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Probability Levels of Examples and Nonexamples . 36
2. A Concept Teaching-Model ( Tennyson and
Cocchiarella, 1986) 47
3. General Instructional Model (Berlin & White,
1987) 49
4. The Schema of the Physics Concept Instructional
Design ........................................ 53
5. Physics Instructional Design Model ............. 54
6. The Teacher-Made Concept Map About Position . . 57
7. The Instructional Design for the Concept,
P o s i t i o n ..................................... 58
8. The Name and Contents of Experiment Instruments . 79
9. The Concept Teaching Sequence among Three
Treatments .............................. 81
10. Physics Concept Teaching and Learning Research
D e s i g n ....................................... 83
11. Data Collection Procedure ...................... 88
12. Time T a b l e .................................... 89
13. The Three Group Centroids of the Physics
Misconception Posttest, the Physics Concept Map
Posttest, and Physics Achievement Test in the
Discriminant-Function Space ................... 99
14. The Three Group Centroids of the Concept Map
Posttest in the Discriminant-Function Space . . . 109
15. Interaction between the Three Teaching Methods
and the Concept Map Pretest and Posttest . . . . 115
xii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
After human beings experience within certain
identifiable situations, changes in their behavior and in
their capabilities for particular behaviors take place. The
process by which the individual is stimulated by these
situations to bring about a change in behavior is called
learning. The situation that sets the process into effect is
called a learning situation (Gagne, Briggs, & Wager, 1988).
All classroom learning can be located along the rote-
meaningful dimension and the reception-discovery dimension.
Reception and discovery learning can be meaningful both if
the student employs a meaningful learning set and if the
learning task itself is potentially meaningful (Ausubel,
Novak, & Hanesian, 1978). What is meaningful learning?
Meaningful learning occurs when new information is linked to
existing relevant concepts in the learner's cognitive
structure (Ausubel et al., 1978; Novak, 1976, 1979, 1980,
1981). That is, meaningful learning incorporates new
knowledge into the cognitive structure of our minds non-
arbitrarily and substantively.
In order to represent meaningful relationships between
1
2
concepts, Novak and Gowin (1984) illustrate an educational
tool referred to as concept mapping to help students learn
and to help teachers organize teaching material. A concept
map is a schematic device for representing a set of concept
meanings embedded in a framework of propositions which are
two or more concept labels linked by words in a semantic
unit.
As for teaching concepts in the classroom, Merrill and
Tennyson (1977), based on the conceptual model of
classification behavior (Woolley & Tennyson, 1972) and
experimental research studies (Tennyson, 1973; Tennyson,
Steve, & Boutwell, 1975), developed a concept-teaching model
in which a set of instructional design guidelines is
provided to enhance concept teaching. Tennyson and
Cocchiarella (1986) update and extend the concept-teaching
model which is composed of two fundamental components of
instructional design: (1) the content structure of a given
domain of information and (2) the organization of
instructional design variables related to the use of
specific content structures.
In classroom teaching, the organization of teaching
materials and activities is closely concerned with concept
teaching. Berlin and White (1987) present an instructional
model which provides for the infusion and integration of
teaching technology into the instructional process, and it
also assists teachers in effectively promoting the learning
3
of concepts in the classroom.
Need for Study
Understanding of kinematical concepts is the ability to
apply them successfully in learning and interpreting simple
motions of real objects. However, certain conceptual
difficulties occur frequently and predictably among
introductory physics students in college. Student
understanding of physical concepts has been subject to
descriptive analysis (Trowbridge & McDermott, 1980). Physics
instructors generally share a common interpretation of the
kinematical concepts based on operational definitions and
precise verbal and mathematical articulation. On the other
hand, students are likely to have a wide variety of somewhat
vague and undifferentiated ideas about motion based on
intuition, experience, and their perception of previous
instruction. Thus students often have insufficient
qualitative understanding of position, velocity, and
acceleration (Trowbridge & McDermott, 1981). Moreover, in
introductory physics teaching, Ploughe (1990, private
communication) indicates that many college students have
verbal problems in explaining the phenomena of motion and
incorrectly use physics definitions to discriminate the
concepts of motion.
Frequently, many students taking introductory physics
cannot apply what they have learned about graphs from their
study of mathematics to physics. The difficulties
experienced by students in connecting graphs to physical
concepts includes the indecision as to whether to extract
the desired information from the slope or the height of a
graph. Students also find it more difficult to interpret
curved graphs than straight-line graphs (McDermott,
Rosenquist & Zee, 1987; White, 1987; Mokros & Tinker, 1987).
Furthermore, many students are unable to translate back and
forth from a position versus time graph to a velocity versus
time graph (McDermott et al., 1987).
Prior to the instruction of introductory college
physics, many students have a set of protoconcepts for
interpreting motion in the real world (Trowbridge &
McDermott, 1980). McCloskey (1983) indicates that the
protoconcepts, misconceptions, appear to be grounded in a
systematic, intuitive theory of motion and they are not
consistent with fundamental principles of Newtonian
mechanics. Halloun and Hestenes (1985) also explain that a
system of beliefs and intuitions about physical phenomena
are possessed by each college student entering a first
course (motion) in physics and the system is derived from
extensive personal experience. This system functions as a
common sense theory of the physical world which the student
uses to interpret what he uses and hears in the physics
course. Yet conventional physics instruction fails almost
5
completely to take this into account. Moreover, the level of
mathematical competence is not sufficient for high
performance in physics. McDermott, Rosenquist, and Zee
(1987) express that students who have no trouble making
physics graphs and computing slopes of graph cannot apply what
they have learned about graphs from their study of
mathematics to physics. Differences in gender, age, academic
major, and high school mathematics showed no effect on
physics achievement. Conventional instruction had little
effect on the student's basic knowledge state and the basic
knowledge gain under conventional instruction is essentially
independent of the professor (Halloun & Hestenes, 1985).
Thus, Clement (1982) suggests that development of innovative
instruction techniques that emphasize rigorous understanding
of qualitative physics principles should be encouraged.
Based on using the conceptual model of classification
behavior (Woolley & Tennyson, 1972), the example and
nonexample teaching strategy had significant results for
instructional procedures on the cognitive level of behavior
in non-science areas (Tennyson, Woolley, & Merrill, 1972;
Tennyson, 1973; Tennyson, Steve, & Boutwell 1975; Tennyson &
Tennyson, 1975) and in a study of crystal structure
(Tennyson, et al., 1975; Merrill & Tennyson, 1978). But,
this teaching strategy has not been used for instructional
procedures in the physics area.
The concept-teaching model originally derived by
Merrill and Tennyson (1977) and updated and extended by
Tennyson and Cocchiarella (1986) is based on the theory of
cognitive learning processes and presents strategies of
concept instructional design. However, this model does not
clearly infuse and integrate teaching technology in its
strategies. On the other hand, the general instructional
model designed by Berlin and White (1987) relates to
organizing teaching materials and activities to combine with
the concept-teaching model.
Therefore, there is a need to (1) develop an
instructional design, in accordance with a physics concept
teaching model derived from learning theories and teaching
models, that is related to the motion topic in introductory
physics for college level students, (2) test whether the
design can improve students' concept learning about motion,
and (3) learn if it can be used as an instructional system
for introductory college physics.
Statement of the Problem
The major tasks of this study are to : (1) develop and
analyze a physics unit of physics instructional design
derived from the physics concept teaching model for college
non-science students, (2) test the design in regard to the
students' learning physics concepts, students' physics
misconceptions, students' physics achievement, and students'
7
attitude toward learning physics, (3) compare whether the
design is better in helping students' concept learning than
the teaching strategy using example and nonexample or the
traditional teaching strategy, and (4) identify what should
be done to further improve the design.
Problems
According to the statement of the main tasks in this
study, three groups of college non-science students are
randomly assigned to three teaching methods: physics concept
teaching method, physics example-nonexample teaching method,
and physics traditional teaching method. Thus the problems
related to the major tasks are stated as follows:
(1) Are there significant differences among the three
groups of non-science students on measures of their learning
physics concepts, their physics misconceptions, and their
physics achievement after three teaching methods are
implemented?
(2) Are there significant difference in physics concept
learning and physics misconception between before and
after three different teaching methods being implemented by
three groups of non-science students?
(3) Are there significant differences among three
groups of non-science students on measures of their
attitudes toward learning physics concepts after three
teaching methods are implemented?
8
(4) What is the predictive contribution of such
variables to learning physics concepts, physics
misconceptions, physics achievement, and attitude toward
learning physics concepts for each of the three teaching
methods?
Definition of Terms
Physics traditional teaching method An approach to
physics concept instruction that involves the teaching of
(1) definition and label of a concept, (2) example or
examples about the concept, and (3) phenomena description or
demonstration to a large group of students.
Physics example-nonexample teaching method An
approach to physics concept instruction that involves the
use of example and nonexample after teaching of the
definition of a concept in the traditional teaching method.
Physics concept teaching method An approach to
physics concept instruction that involves the presentation
of a concept map designed by Novak (1984), the teaching
technology of the general instructional model designed by
Berlin and White (1987) , and the instructional strategy of
the concept-teaching model designed by Tennyson and
Cocchiarella (1986).
Concept map A concept map is a schematic device for
representing a set of concept meanings embedded in a
9
framework of propositions (Novak & Gowin, 1984).
Misconception Misconception is the term commonly
used to describe an unaccepted (but not necessarily "wrong")
interpretation of a concept illustrated in the statement in
which the concept is embedded (Novak & Gowin, 1984).
Concept teaching Concept teaching contains five
procedures: (1) present a definition, (2) provide an
expository presentation, (3) provide attribute isolation,
(4) provide an inquisitory practice presentation, and (5)
provide a test of classification (Merrill & Tennyson, 1977).
Concept learning Learning the meaning of a concept,
that is, learning the meaning of its criteria attributes;
includes concept formation and concept assimilation
(Ausubel, Novak & Hanesian, 1978).
Physics 101 Nature of Physical World An
undergraduate physics course which is an elementary
description of the physical world emphasizing scientific
method and contemporary viewpoints. This course is the first
quarter of two quarters sequence. Laboratory work and
demonstrations are included in it.
Physics 111 General Physics: Mechanics and Heat
An undergraduate course in mechanics and heat for students
majoring in the life sciences and in architecture. This
course is the first of a series of three courses which
presents major physical principle and concepts from a
contemporary point of view. The sequence includes laboratory
10
work and demonstrations.
Physics 131 Introductory Physics: Particles and
Motion An undergraduate physics course that presents the
major concepts of physics from a contemporary point of view,
for students majoring in physical sciences, mathematics, or
engineering. This course is the first quarter of three
quarters sequence.
Assumptions
The assumptions of this study are stated as follows:
1. The non-science students in this study, before
attending the Physics 101 course, have at least studied
Mathematics 075 (previously Math 102) or placement in
mathematics course code R or higher.
2. The non-science students over the duration of this
study do not get any private physics tutorial except
classroom teaching and recitation and appointments with the
teaching professor and teaching assistant.
3. The non-science students responses to the
instruments in this study are a valid indication of their
physics concepts, physics achievement, and physics attitude
about motion.
Delimitations
1. The subjects of this study are college non-science
students studying non-calculus (algebra only) physics
11
(Physics 101).
2. The total of three sections of Physics 101 will be
included in this study.
3. The concept map test for assessing students'
learning of physics concepts is related to Novak's learning
theory. The scoring criteria of the test are from Novak's
rules and include: (a) relationships, (b) hierarchy, (c)
cross lines, and (d) specific examples. Also, the content of
the concept map pretest and posttest is the same.
4. The content of the items of the misconception test
related to the specific physics topic in the design unit are
concerned with position, velocity, acceleration, and graph,
and the item sources of the misconception test are from
research results. Also, the content of the misconception
pretest and posttest is the same.
5. The items of the physics achievement test are based
on the objectives of Physics 101.
6. The item sources of the learning attitude test are
from the research results, students' written responses,
classroom observation, and personal interview. The contents
of the test are concerned with: (a) learning concepts, (b)
misconception beliefs, (c) teaching concepts, and (d)
concept mapping.
Limitations
1. The classroom teaching time of this study was
12
determined by the schedule of Physics 101.
2. Results of this study apply only to the Physics 101
course, not to Physics 111 and 131 series physics courses.
3. Out-of-class physics learning is undetermined.
4. Results of this study cannot be generalized to other
units of study in the Physics 101 course, without further
testing.'
5. The tested results of any subject who misses one of
the implemented cognitive tests will not be considered in
this study.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
The relevant literature for this study encompasses
seven main topics: misconception, concept definition,
concept learning, concept map, teaching concept, concept
teaching model, and general instruction model.
Misconception
Recent studies have indicated that many students
construct their own informal theories to interpret a number
of physics events. Those students7 intuitive ideas often
conflict with Newtonian theory and so interfere with physics
learning and teaching. The ideas are always labeled as
misconceptions. Trowbridge and McDermott (1980) indicated
that students have a set of "protoconcepts" before
instruction which are a repertoire of procedures,
vocabulary, associations, and analogies for interpreting
motion in the real world. Students often fail to make
connections between the protoconcepts and the concepts of
kinematics. Some students are even remarkably persistent in
certain preconceptions and they depend strongly upon the
establishment of satisfactory connection between the new
13
14
motion concepts and the protoconcepts.
In observing a large number of college students taking
introductory physics, Clement (1982) found that "conceptual
primitives" which include key physics concepts and
fundamental physics principles and models are misunderstood
by many physics students at the qualitative level in
addition to any difficulties that might occur with
mathematical formulation. He explains that Newtonian ideas
are more likely misperceived or distorted by students so as
to fit their existing preconceptions; or they may be
memorized separately as formulas with little or no
connection to fundamental qualitative concepts.
McCloskey (1983) indicates that many students have
striking misconceptions about the motion of objects in
apparently simple circumstances and the misconceptions are
apparently grounded in a systematic, intuitive theory of
motion which is not consistent with basic principles of
Newtonian mechanics.
Halloun and Hestenes (1985) also found that each
student entering a first course in physics possesses a
system of beliefs and intuitions about physical phenomena
derived from extensive personal experience. These systems
are referred to as a "common sense belief" of the physical
world which the student uses to interpret his experience,
including what he uses and hears in the physics course. The
common sense beliefs about motion are generally incompatible
15
with Newtonian theory and they are very stable, and
conventional physics instruction does not .successfully
correct them. Halloun and Hestenes (1986) indicate that the
common sense beliefs which are incompatible with established
scientific theory are dismissed by most scientists, but
students are not so easily disabused of the beliefs because
their own beliefs are grounded in long personal experience.
They also express that Aristotle was the first to
systematically develop explicit formulations for the common
sense beliefs about physical phenomena and organize them
into a coherent conceptual system, and the beliefs systems
of students untutored in physics are sometimes characterized
as "Aristotelian." McClelland (1985) used "pre-Galilean
ideas" to characterize these views of the world which differ
from those ideas held by "scientists". Hewson (1985)
indicated that students bring to the science classroom
surprisingly extensive "student theories" or "alternative
conceptions" about how the natural world works.
Misconception about motion
In learning introductory college physics, many students
have misconceptions in studying the kinematical concepts,
the first subject of classical mechanics. Trowbridge and
McDermott (1980) found that college students with no
previous study of physics thought of the word 'speed' as a
relation between the distance traveled and the elapsed time
16
but not necessarily as a ratio; 'accelerate' was used to
indicate that an object 'speeded up'. From many exploratory
interviews and a number of preliminary trials, Trowbridge et
al. (1980) developed two speed comparison tasks and asked
student to compare the simultaneous motions of two identical
balls rolling on parallel U channels. As a result, they
found that failure on the speed comparison tasks was almost
invariably due to improper use of a position criterion to
determine relative velocity. Moreover, they also found
evidence that some students' certain preconceptions may be
remarkably persistent.
About the understanding of the concept of acceleration
among college students, Trowbridge and McDermott (1981)
designed acceleration comparison tasks to find how students
apply their concepts of acceleration in interpreting simple
motions of real objects. They found that many students use
different concepts as the criterion to compare accelerations
and these concepts are position, speed, relative velocity,
and average velocity.
In the real world experience, it is illustrated that
some students have the misconception in separating the
concepts of velocity and position at a particular instant.
Trowbridge and McDermott (1980) and Halloun and Hestenes
(1985) reported that some students believe that if two cars,
on the freeway, reach the same position at the same time,
17
then they must have the same speed at that instant.
Misconception about motion graphs
Graphing is a powerful and key symbol system for
representation of data and scientific communication.
McDermott, Rosenquist, and Zee (1987) point out that many
undergraduates taking introductory physics seem to lack the
ability to use graphs either for imparting or extracting
information. The analysis of graphing errors identified in
their study indicates that many are a direct consequence of
an inability to make connections between a graphical
representation and the subject matter it represents. For
example, students frequently do not know whether to extract
the desired information from the slope or the height of a
graph, and many are unable to translate back and forth form
a position versus time graph to a velocity versus time
graph.
Mokros and Tinker (1987) in their Microcomputer-Based
Lab (MBL) project identified that two major types of
graphing misconception are: (1) a strong graph-as-picture
confusion, and (2) a weaker indication of slope/height
confusion. White (1987) also indicates that students tend to
confuse the picture of an event with the graph of an event.
Implications for Instruction about Motion
Because many undergraduate students are unable to
discriminate between position and velocity and some students
18
seem to depend strongly upon the establishment of
satisfactory connections between new physics concepts and
the protoconcepts with which the student is already
familiar, Trowbridge and McDermott (1980, 1981) suggest that
a conscious effort should be made to try to help students
relate physical concepts to their experience. For example,
the relationship between the use of technical vocabulary and
the understanding of physical concepts needs to be examined
carefully and more attention at the introductory level might
be devoted to the basic kinematical concepts. They also
suggest more attention to the detailed information about
conceptual understanding that can usefully help some college
students overcome deficiencies in studying introductory
college physics.
Clement (1982) thinks that it is important to find
teaching strategies that encourage students to articulate
and become conscious of their own preconceptions by making
predictions based on them and also encourage them to make
explicit comparisons between preconceptions, accepted
scientific explanations, and convincing empirical
observations. Furthermore, class discussions and arguments
between students are especially helpful in their qualitative
understandings about the Newtonian point of view.
Halloun and Hestenes (1985) from their diagnostic test
results argue that a student's initial knowledge has a large
19
effect on his performance in physics, but conventional
instruction produces comparatively small improvements in his
basic knowledge. However, Hewson (1985) describes the use of
a microcomputer program designed to diagnose students who
use a position criterion for judging when two objects are
moving with the same velocity and the program is effective
in changing students' alternative conceptions of velocity.
Rosenquist and McDermott (1987) have developed an
approach to the teaching of kinematics. By means of specific
examples, instruction based on the direct observation of
motion can help students recognize key features of
definitions, distinguish related concepts from one another,
and make explicit connections among concepts, their
graphical representation, and the real world. For example,
Rosenquist and McDermott (1987) apply a limiting process of
a curved position versus time graph to have a conceptual
criterion at the limit. From the concrete experience of the
magnified sections of a curved graph, students can deepen
their understanding of both instantaneous velocity and the
slope of a curved graph.
When interpreting a graph in physics, McDermott,
Rosenquist, and Zee (1987) express that the ability to draw
and interpret graphs is perhaps one of the most important in
the study of physics. They believe that facility with
graphing can play a critical role in helping students deepen
their understanding of the kinematical concepts.
20
McDermott (1990) and Trowbridge (1990) introduce the
use of a computer software package, Graphs and Tracks, as
one way for students to deepen their understanding by having
a direct experience making connections between motion and
its graphical representation.
Concept Definition
In science teaching and learning, concepts are always
the important results of scientific processes. Pella (1966)
indicates that concepts may be viewed initially as a summary
of the essential characteristics of a group of ideas and
facts that epitomize important common features or factors
from a large number of ideas. Because of the comprehensive
nature of concepts, Pella states that concepts are useful to
the individual in order to gain some grasp of a much larger
field of knowledge than he has personally experienced.
The most fundamental meaning of concept is exhibited in
individual behavior by responding to a class of observable
objects or object qualities such as those implied by the
names "color," "shape," "size," "heaviness," and so on, or
by common objects such as "cat," "chair," "tree," and
"house." Those concepts are concrete and they are concepts
by observation. Then, abstract concepts can be described and
even defined; [e.g., mass, temperature, and prime number.
(Gagne, 1970)].
Shumway (1971) suggests a concept is a partitioning of
a class X, universal class over which the concept is
defined, into two disjoint classes X1# positive instances,
and X2, negative instances of the concept. The class X is
the union of the class X1 and the class X2 and the classes
X1 and X2 are disjoint. To say that a student knows the
concept over the class X is to say that given any object
from the class X the student is able to identify the object
as a member of the class X^^ or the class X2 associated with
the concept over the class X. Thus their relationships can
follow from the above results:
X = xi x2 , X = X - X2, and X2 = X - X ^
According to the empirical research results by Merrill
and Tennyson (1977), a concept can be defined as "a set of
specific objects, symbols, or events which are grouped
together on the basis of shared characteristics and which
can be referenced by a particular name or symbol." Novak and
Gowin (1984) simply define concept as a regularity in events
or objects designated by some label. Gagne et al. (1988)
defines "a concept is a capability that makes it possible
for an individual to identify a stimulus as a member of a
class having some characteristic in common, even though such
stimuli may otherwise differ from each other markedly." He
also identifies a concrete concept as an object property or
object attribute and a defined concept as an individuals
ability to demonstrate the meaning of some particular class
22
of objects, events, or relations.
Concept Learning
An important type of learning is cognitive learning,
which is Ausubel's primary theory in cognitive processes.
Cognitive learning results in organized storage of
information in the learner's brain and this organized
complex is referred to as cognitive structure. The most
important concept in Ausubel's theory is what he describes
as meaningful learning. Meaningful learning occurs when new
information is linked to existing relevant concepts in the
learner's cognitive structure. Rote learning, on the other
hand, is also possible to learn new information with little
or no linkage to existing elements in cognitive structure
(Thorsland & Novak, 1974; Novak, 1976).
In the course of meaningful learning, individuals must
choose to relate new information to relevant concepts and
propositions they already know. The existing relevant
concept in cognitive structure is called the subsuming
concept or subsumer. The linkage of new information with a
relevant subsumer in the process of meaningful learning is
the course of subsumption. For a period of time, the new
information learned will no longer be dissociable from the
subsuming concept. This case is called obliterative
subsumption. After obliterative subsumption, the residual
23
concept remains and much of the growth that occurred during
subsumption is retained. Therefore, the remaining concept is
strengthened and more capable of facilitating new meaningful
learning in the future (Novak,1976).
As the subsumption process proceeds, existing concepts
become more elaborated or more differentiated; that is,
meaningful learning is a continuous process wherein new
concepts gain greater meaning as new relationships with
previously learned, relevant concepts are acquired. Thus,
concepts are always being learned, modified, and made more
explicit and more inclusive as they become progressively
differentiated (Novak,1976; Novak & Gowin, 1984).
In the process of learning and concept differentiation,
conflicting meanings may arise and the process by which
conflicting meanings between concepts are clarified is
known as integrative reconciliation (Novak 1976, 1979; Novak
& Gowin 1984).
Meaningful learning incorporates new knowledge into the
cognitive structure of our minds non-arbitrarily and
substantively (Novak, 1979). However, each student will form
his/her own idiosyncratic meaning for the concept, and most
of the new concepts will be achieved through reception
learning (Ausubel et al., 1978). If the reception learning
is to be meaningful, the learner must form unique linkages
between the concepts s/he already has and the new
descriptions of regularities that are to be learned. Thus,
24
meaningful learning is always idiosyncratic, and in this
sense the learner "discovers" the meaning of all concepts by
the nonarbitrary way in which s/he learns the new concepts.
As the study of human learning has proceeded, Gagne
(1988) indicates that a whole set of factors that influence
learning may be called the conditions of learning. Some of
these conditions pertain to the stimuli that are external to
the learner. Others are internal conditions that are sought
within the individual learner.
Advance Organizer
Advance organizers are introductory material at a high
level of abstraction, generality, and inclusiveness and they
facilitate meaningful verbal learning and retention
(Ausubel, 1960; Ausubel & Fitzgerald, 1961).
Two different ways that advance organizers facilitate
the incorporability and longevity of meaningful verbal
material: (1) the organizers explicitly draw upon and
mobilize whatever relevant subsumers are already established
in the learner's cognitive structure and make them part of
the subsuming entity, (2) the organizers at an appropriate
level of inclusiveness provide optimal anchorage. Thus, the
more unfamiliar the learning material, the more inclusive or
highly generalized the subsumers must be in order to be as
proximate as possible to the degree of conceptualization of
the learning task. If appropriately relevant and proximate
25
subsuming concepts are not available, the most dependable
way of helping retention is to introduce the appropriate
subsumers and make them part of cognitive structure before
the actual presentation of the learning task. The introduced
subsumers become advance organizers for the reception of new
material (Ausubel, 1960). Moreover, the organizer better
enables the learners to put their background knowledge to
effective use in structuring the unfamiliar new material
(Ausubel & Fitzgerald, 1962).
By using Ausubel's theory about the ideas of
subsumption as a promising base for research formulation,
Novak (1971) found that advance organizers can facilitate
learning before students have the available subsumers, and
effective instruction for meaningful reception learning
could benefit by use of advance organizers in sequences with
instruction. Thus, a hierarchical series of organizers would
be planned into the instructional sequence. Novak (1976)
also uses "cognitive bridges" to emphasize the "linking" or
"bridging" function of "advance organizers". Short segments
of learning material can be used to provide guidance to the
student by establishing appropriate subsuming concepts so
that new concepts can be assimilated in the cognitive
structure for meaningful learning. Moreover, the key
concepts in the new material and their subordinate or
superordinate relationship to concepts the learner already
has can be helpful as cognitive bridges.
26
Concept Map
Concept mapping is a model to demonstrate the nature of
concept learning to students (Novak, 1980, 1981; Novak,
Gowin & Johansen, 1983). Concept maps are intended to
represent meaningful relationships between concepts in the
form of propositions, which are two or more concept labels
linked by words in a semantic unit (Novak & Gowin, 1984). A
simple method for constructing concept maps is to supply
students with a list of related concepts and have them
construct a map, placing the most inclusive, most general
concept at the top and then showing successively less
inclusive concepts at lower positions on a hierarchy. Novak
et al. (1984) indicate that this idea of hierarchical
structure incorporates Ausubel's concept of subsumption,
namely that new information often is relatable to and
subsumable under more general, more inclusive concepts. The
hierarchical structure can also show the set of
relationships between a concept and other concepts
subordinate to it. If sections of a concept map are too
general or too specific, the hierarchical structure of it
indicates either misunderstanding or the need for more
careful integration of superordinate and subordinate
concepts.
Concepts are always being learned, modified, and made
27
more explicit and more inclusive as they become
progressively differentiated. Novak et al. (1984) state when
concept maps for one topic are cross linked to concept maps
for other related topics, progressive differentiation of
concepts is enhanced. Because the positive emotional
experience that derives from meaningful learning is a major
source of sustained intrinsic motivation for learning, Novak
et al. (1984) state that progressive differentiation of
concepts through concept mapping can provide emotional as
well as cognitive rewards, both in the short term and,
especially, in the long term.
When the learner recognizes new relationships between
related sets of concepts or propositions, integrative
reconciliation in the process of meaningful learning is
occurring. Novak et al. (1984) suggest that concept maps
that show valid cross links between sets of concepts that
might otherwise be viewed as independent, can suggest
learners' integrative reconciliation of concepts.
Concept Mao and Misconception
Because concept maps are an explicit, overt
representation of the concepts and propositions a person
holds, they allow teachers and students to exchange views on
checking propositional linkage or recognizing missing
linkages between concepts. More importantly, because concept
maps contain externalized expressions of propositions, they
28
are effective tools for showing misconceptions.
Misconceptions are usually signaled either by a linkage
between two concepts that leads to a clearly false
proposition or by a linkage that misses the key idea
relating two or more concepts (Novak & Gowin, 1984) .
Concept Map and Evaluation
Concept mapping is a technique which allows the student
to demonstrate what he or she know in a visual form. Concept
maps help learners identify the key concepts to be learned,
and show links between what is to be learned and what he or
she already knows. Thus scoring systems have been designed
for concept maps, and the basis for the systems is the
quantification of meaningful learning relative to some
discipline area. Credit is given not only for the number of
valid propositions or concept linkages, but even more
importantly, for the number of valid hierarchical levels
(Novak & Gowin, 1984; Ridley & Novak, 1988).
Concept Map and Teaching
Using concept mapping techniques, in an introductory
biology course for biology majors, Arnandin, Mintzes, Dunn,
and Shager (1984) trained students to map, tested their pre
instruction maps and post-instruction maps, and assessed
their maps. They advanced the following claims made on behalf of
concept mapping: (1) concept mapping helps students
29
understand what meaningful learning is, (2) concept mapping
facilitates meaningful learning, (3) concept mapping is an
effective study technique, (4) concept mapping provides a
useful evaluation tool, and (5) concept mapping is a useful
tool for organizing and sequencing instruction.
Ault (1985) introduced concept mapping as a study
strategy in an earth science course and indicated that
concept mapping is one strategy for solving the problem of
why students often learn so little. Judiciously used by
either instructors planning lectures or students preparing
for an examination, concept mapping enhances opportunities
for meaningful learning. However, in nonsupportive settings,
Ault indicates that students' tolerance for mapping
exercises will fade rapidly. And, grading practices can
thoroughly undermine the value of concept mapping by
reinforcing rote learning. Ault cautions that students
should not be asked to memorize instructor-prepared maps.
Moreover, students often do not feel comfortable working
within highly interconnected systems of thought and some
believe they must remember information precisely in the form
presented or be penalized. Thus the rote knowledge in novel
contexts becomes painfully evident. Ault suggests that
meaningful learning requires uncompromising commitment by
both teachers and students to an understanding of structure
in knowledge, and concept mapping skill leads in this
direction.
30
In order to actively promote meaningful learning,
Cliburn (1986, 1990) uses teacher-made concept maps as
potential applications of the advance organizer. He uses
whole-unit maps to represent the unit's conceptual framework
and then forms this large-scale map. A series of more
specific, higher-resolution maps can be drawn to show more
detail, resulting in a nested set of conceptual maps for the
unit. Furthermore, he makes a color-coded composite map
joining all the individual concept maps and posts it on the
classroom bulletin board. After the formal study of the
concept map, Cliburn found students who were taught by using
concept maps learned better and retained the material
better. Thus the effectiveness of concept maps promoting
long-term retention is strongly confirmed.
Some Alternate Assessments of Cognitive Structure
Shavelson (1974) presents a model of human information
processing which can be divided into two general components:
perception and memory. In the memory component, long-term
memory (LTM) and a retrieval and decision process serve to
define the cognitive structure. Two measurement methods that
retrieve the student's representation of a subject-matter
structure from his cognitive structure are Word-Association
Method and Graph-Construction Method.
In the Word-Association Method, the student's list of
responses to each stimulus word in a test are scored through
31
their number, type (Shavelson, 1973), or overlap (Shavelson,
1974). Garskof and Houston (1963) provided a method of the
Relatedness Coefficient (RC) to define the relatedness of
each two words in a set of associates. This method was used
to judge the physics concepts in the subject matter
(Johnson, 1967); Preece, 1976). Then the observed
coefficients of all pairs of concepts can be analyzed by
using factor analysis, multidimensional scaling (Kruskal,
1964; Davison, 1983), or hierarchical cluster analysis
(SPSS, 1990) to present the student's cognitive structure.
Gussarsky and Gorodetsky (1988) use the method of
constrained word associations to gain knowledge on the
chemical equilibrium concept.
In the Graph-Construction Method, the student is given
a list of key words and asked to build a linear tree graph
by connecting pairs of words. The distances between all
pairs of words on the graph are analyzed by various scaling
techniques the same as in the word-association method, in
order to examine the student's cognitive structure (Waern,
1972; Shavelson, 1974).
Diekhoff and Diekhoff (1982) state that an instructor's
numerical judgments of all possible pairs of key concepts
selected from a knowledge domain should be useful in
conveying structural information to students. The
instructor's judgments can be analyzed through principal
32
components analysis (SPSS, 1990) to translate relationship
judgments into distance. These distances are used in
creating a graphic array of concept-points in space, called
a "cognitive map".
Jonassen (1984) develops a technology, Pattern Notes,
for analyzing and classifying the relational links between
concepts. To construct a pattern note, a primary subject is
first identified and written in block letters in the center
of a blank sheet of paper, and a box drawn around it. Next,
the student free associates about the subject, thinking
about the key related concepts, and writes them on lines
connecting them to the box. The number of lines between two
concepts may be summarized in a distance matrix and then
they are analyzed by using the method of multidimensional
scaling. As a result, the structure of conceptual
relationships derived by the Pattern Notes test and the Word
Association test are statistically and visually very similar
(Jonassen, 1987).
Teaching Concept
Concept Classification
Most studies of conceptual behavior have dealt mainly
with the characterization of the specific concept to be
learned. The general form of solution (rule) has been simple
and familiar, e. g., a conjunction of attributes, and has
been described for the learner during preliminary
33
instructions and/or practice problems. Under these
circumstances, the learning task can be described as
attribute identification and the rule relating the relevant
attributes given has received little attention. Thus, a rule
learning (RL) task based on the conceptual rules which are
conjunction, inclusive disjunction, joint denial, and
conditional is constructed and concerned with separable and
unique behaviors. In the RL task, changes in rule difficulty
are a function of the acquisition by learners of a stimulus-
coding strategy, and the strategy reduces a large and
potentially unlimited stimulus population to four classes:
(a) both, (b) the first but not the second, (c) the second
but not the first, and (d) neither of the two given relevant
attributes. In general, these classes are referred to as TT,
TF, FT, and FF in a bidimensional truth table. Each
bidimensional rule can map the stimulus classes uniquely
into the two categories of a concept, positive and negative
instances. Once the strategy is mastered, learners are
merely required to learn the assignment of these four
classes to two response categories. Moreover, the
acquisition of a stimulus-coding strategy could reduce
differences in rule difficulty and produce apparent positive
interrule transfer effects (Haygood & Bourne, 1965).
In the study of the relationship between unknown
relevant attributes which are conjunctive, inclusive
34
disjunctive, and conditional, Bourne and Guy (1968a)
indicate that learners experienced with conditional concepts
produce the largest positive transfer effect.
In the research about the effect of rule learning
(attributes given, rule unknown) problems on the basis of
information provided by positive instances only, negative
instances only, or a mixture of positive and negative
instances, learners performed best on all rules when the
mixture of positive and negative instances is presented
(Bourne & Guy, 1968b).
Concept is a psychological and instructional term of
importance to all educators, and the research on teaching
concepts is also important. Focused on improving the method
of teaching concept behavior, Woolley and Tennyson (1972)
introduce a diagrammatic model to represent a concept made
up of all items which are related under the specific set of
conditions as imposed by the definition of the concept.
Concept class is made up of a group of related items and the
relationships held in common by all the items in a given
concept class are defined by the characteristics set forth
in the definition. Relevant attributes are those
characteristics which are essential to the item for it to be
classed as belonging to the concept and irrelevant
attributes are those not essential. Thus items in a concept
class are related by their relevant attributes. Furthermore,
an example referred to as an item is defined as belonging to
35
a concept class, and a nonexample (item) does not belong to
the class. Then the items in a class are normally
distributed based upon the ease in recognizing an item as
being either an example or a nonexample.
Example and Nonexample
During the process of concept learning, Woolley et al.
(1972) define three independent variables concerned with the
distribution to the examples: probability, matching, and
pairing. Probability levels of examples and nonexamples
presented are determined by their ease of recognition. The
relationships between high/low probability and examples/
nonexamples can be found in Figure 1. That the relationship
between examples and nonexamples is presented continuously
is called matching; that is, an example and nonexample are
matched when they share virtually all of the same irrelevant
attributes, and differ only in some relevant attributes.
Pairing has two different types: divergent pairing refers to
the case when two examples presented in a sequence differ as
much as possible in their irrelevant attributes; convergent
pairing means two sequential examples differ only slightly
in irrelevant attributes.
There are four concept learning outcomes specified in
relationship to the independent variables. If the
36
High probability Low probability
Examples
An example would be
recognized as belonging
to a specified concept
class.
An example would be
incorrectly classified
as belonging to a
specified concept
class
Nonexamples
A nonexample would be
easily rejected as
belonging to a
specified concept
class.
A nonexample would be
incorrectly accepted
as belonging to a
specified concept
class.
Figure 1. Probability Levels of Examples and Nonexamples
37
respondents would correctly classify previously
unencountered examples of all probability levels, it is the
case of correct classification. However, when previously
unencountered examples are correctly identified but some low
probability nonexamples are also included as being examples
is called overgeneralization; i. e. a respondent cannot
discriminate between examples and nonexamples and indicates
that the learner's range of acceptance is too great. On the
other hand, when the range of rejection is too great is
called undergeneralization. If the learner variously accepts
or rejects examples and nonexamples of all probability
levels based on their irrelevant attributes, it is
misconception (Woolley & Tennyson, 1972).
In investigating the relationship among examples and
nonexamples, concept learning is most effectively
facilitated as examples present a range from easy to
difficult, subsequent examples are divergent in variable
attributes (irrelevant attributes) from previous examples,
and examples are matched to nonexamples on the basis of
similarity of variable attributes (Tennyson, Woolley &
Merrill, 1972; Tennyson, 1973; Tennyson & Park, 1980).
Moreover, organized sequence of a presentation of examples
is more effective than random presentation. (Tennyson, Steve
& Boutwell, 1975).
In a classroom study, Shumway (1971) found that
nonexamples discouraged overgeneralization errors by eighth
38
grade students for concepts involving the properties of
mathematical binary operations.
In the study of the effects of an instructional
sequence of all examples and a sequence of examples and
nonexamples on the acquisition of the mathematical concepts
of commutativity, accociativity, distributivity, and
homomorphism, Shumway (1973, 1974) found that a sequence of
examples and nonexamples was superior to a sequence of all
examples for the acquisition of these concepts. The results
of these studies are consistent with Tennyson, Woolley, and
Merrill (1972) and Shumway (1972).
Instructional research on concepts in mathematics
(Shumway, 1974, 1977), Poetry (Tennyson, Woolley & Merrill,
1972; Tennyson, Steve & Boutwell, 1975), sentence (Tennyson,
1973), and chemistry crystal structure (Merrill & Tennyson,
1978) suggests that mixtures of examples and nonexamples are
favored over all examples in learning school-related
concepts. In order to identify important variables
influencing the role of nonexamples on logical thinking in
conjunctive feature identification tasks, the all example
treatment was favored over the mixed example and nonexample
treatment with the 1:1 feature frequency condition; the
mixed example and nonexample treatment was favored over the
all example treatment where the frequency of one feature of
the irrelevant dimensions was 9:1 compared to the other
39
feature (Shumway, White, Wilson & Brombacher, 1983) . By
using Apple II microcomputer to design a program including
graphics animated to represent chemical and physical changes
which are often observed in qualitative chemical analysis,
White, Wilson, and Shumway (1981) also found the same
results.
In addition to organizing examples and nonexamples in
teaching concepts, additional improvements are suggested to
include: (1) the use of attention focusing devices
(attribute isolation) to focus the student's attention on
the critical attributes, (2) the use of a step-by-step
(algorithmic) presentation of the definition, and (3) the
combination of expository presentations with feedback-
accompanied practice (Merrill & Tennyson, 1978).
As to the question of how many examples and nonexamples
in concept teaching should be presented, Tennyson and Park
(1980) indicated that the appropriate number of examples
differs according to the learning characteristics of
individual students.
Concept Teaching Model
In carefully controlled experimental research studies,
Merrill and Tennyson (1977) express that most concepts do
not exist in isolation but rather as part of a set of
related concepts. Thus " a concept taxonomy is a diagram
which is constructed to indicate the subordinate,
40
superordinate, and coordinate relationships among a set of
related concepts." "When a superordinate concept is divided
into subordinate concepts, the subordinate concepts for a
single superordinate concept are called coordinate
concepts." Using the coordinate concepts selected from
psychology as a task with junior and senior high students,
Tennyson, Tennyson and Rothen (1980) examined three
presentation orders of sequencing examples of coordinate
concepts: (1) Simultaneous order, all of the coordinate
concepts were presented concurrently by grouping one example
from each concept in a rational set. Within a rational set
the representative examples had matched variable attributes
and different critical attributes, while between rational
sets the examples had divergent variable attributes; (2)
Collective order, the coordinate concepts are clustered
according to shared critical attributes. That is, certain
critical attributes may be identical in various concepts,
with differences between these concepts based on subordinate
concepts; (3) Successive order, there were no groupings;
instead, each concept was presented independently. In terms
of concept learning, the results indicate that students
learn generalization behavior when they are given a range of
variable attributes between rational sets, and that they
learn discrimination behavior when given examples of each
concept within rational sets.
41
In the research of concept learning, Tennyson, Chao,
and Youngers (1981) suggest that what is stored in memory is
a best example (prototype or clear case) and that learners
match newly encountered examples with that best example.
Thus they used three presentation methods to test concept
attainment: (1) expository, with labels and statements
clearly identifying examples and nonexamples; (2)
interrogatory, with questions requiring students to identify
examples and nonexamples; and (3) expository-interrogatory,
a combination of the first two. Data analyses showed that
learning was facilitated for fourth-grade students by a
presentation method that combined expository statements of
best examples with interrogatives over presentations that
were expository or interrogatory only.
From the extensive research on concept learning in
psychology and education, two processes should be involved
in the concept learning: first, formation in the
individual's memory of a best example and second,
development of the skill to recognize specific attributes of
similarity and difference between and among newly
encountered examples. As to the teaching concept, a good
concept lesson should include the following elements (Jassal
& Tennyson, 1982):
1. a concept definition;
2. a best example;
3. an expository set of examples;
42
4. an interrogatory set of examples;
5. a classification test.
For purposes of instructional design, the research
presented above have shown that concept learning involves
development of classification skills in generalization and
discrimination and that learners can learn most effectively
if the learners are presented with best examples of the
concept in both expository and interrogatory presentation
forms. In order to test (1) whether formation of conceptual
information may be learned by an instructional presentation
form that focuses attention on a best example or that
clarifies the relationship of the critical attributes, and
(2) the effect of expository examples in facilitating the
transition between the encoding of conceptual information
and the development of the classification skill, Tennyson,
Youngers, and Suebsonthi (1983) used the concept of a
regular polygon as a task with third-grade students. The
results of the study show (a) that presentation of best-
examples along with the definition facilitated prototype
formation more than did a presentation of the definition
along with a statement clarifying the relationship of the
critical attributes, and (b) that classification skill was
facilitated more by presentation of both expository and
interrogatory examples compared to an interrogatory-only
presentation.
43
Based on a programmatic line of research that has
focused on the improvement of concept-learning through the
enhancement of instructional design variables, Tennyson and
Cocchiarella (1986) present a concept-teaching model which
extends the earlier version of a model presented by Merrill
and Tennyson (1977). In this model, Tennyson et al. (1986)
use current theory and research findings from instructional
systems, cognitive science, and developmental psychology to
indicate two cognitive processes in a concept-learning
model: (a) formation of conceptual knowledge which is formed
in memory by the integrated storage of meaningful dimensions
selected from known examples and the connecting of this
entity in a given domain of information; and (b) development
of procedural knowledge which is developed by using
conceptual knowledge to solve domain-specific problems.
Based on this two-phase theory of concept learning, the
concept-teaching model is composed of two fundamental
components of design: (1) the content structure of a given
domain of information and (2) the organization of
instructional design variables related to the use of
specific content structures.
In the content structure variables of the concept-
teaching model, Tennyson et al. (1986) suggest that they
should be analyzed according to two conditions: (1) the
relational structure between concepts in a given domain of
information and (2) the variability of the attribute
44
characteristics of each concept in the domain. The
relational structure of concepts are associated with two
classification skills: generalization and discrimination.
When engaging in a content analysis, successive and
coordinate are determined as the basic relations of the
domain's structures. With successive relationships, learning
is limited primarily to the development of generalizations
within a concept class. With coordination relationships,
learning includes the development of skills to generalize
within a concept class and discriminate between concepts.
The second condition, attribute characteristics, affects the
design of an instructional strategy for either coordinate or
successive concepts. Attributes can be thought of as having
constant or variable dimensions. When the definition of a
concept does not change with the context in which it is
learned, the concept may be considered as having constant
attributes. On the other hand, a concept may be considered
as having variable dimensions when its definition and
examples tend to change with the context of instruction.
The instructional design variables for concept-teaching
suggested by Tennyson and Cocchiarella (1986) are directly
related to specific cognitive processes in concept-learning.
They are explained in the following:
(1) Label, definition, and context. Labels and
definitions seem to help the learner establish in memory the
possible connection between existing necessary knowledge and
the to-be-learned concepts, but definitions play a secondary
role in concept learning because learners rarely learn well
from only definitions and most often verbatim definitions
are not encoded in memory. The relationship between a label
and the concept represented by a label often in an
unhelpful, arbitrary association established by cultural
convention. However, concept labels can assist learners in
conjuring up the concept in memory by relating the concept
to what is already known. A concept may have one label but
several definitions, a specific context for the presentation
of a problem within the appropriate situation or domain can
provide information to establish critical attributes of the
concept.
(2) Best examples. The best example represents an
average, central, or prototypical form of a concept, but it
is not necessarily a quantitative value. Because a best
example sets up the initial encoding of conceptual
knowledge, it should be an example that can conjure up in
memory existing knowledge structures.
(3) Expository examples. Expository examples provide
the dimensionality or richness of conceptual knowledge. In
the process of teaching the examples, learners also acquire
the initial procedural knowledge for using the conceptual
knowledge.
(4) Interrogatory examples. Interrogatory examples
46
further enhance the development of procedural knowledge.
(5) Attribute elaboration. This design variable assists
the learner in establishing the conceptual knowledge
structure of a given concept and its relationship in a
schematic network. There are two devices used for attribute
elaboration: (1) attribute prompting which is a tool to help
learners establish the conceptual knowledge by focusing
their attention in a given example on the specific and
unique characteristics of that concept; (2) attribute
feedback which helps in providing connections with other
concepts after a solution to an interrogatory example.
(6) Strategy information. When learners make an
incorrect solution to an interrogatory example, this design
variable focuses on what kind of solution strategy for a
given concept class should be presented.
(7) Embedded refreshment. This design variable is used
to make connections in memory between to-be-learned concepts
and existing necessary knowledge.
The concept-teaching model is diagrammed in Figure 2.
General instructional model
Effective use of the instructional resources in science
classrooms is very important and is concerned with the
design, selection, and organization of instructional
materials. A general instructional model for the
47
Best
Examples
Strategy
Information
Embedded
Refresh
ment
Attribute
Elabora
tion
Relational
Structure
Label
Definition
& Context
Attribute
Character
istics
Expository
Examples
Interroga
tory
Examples
Concept Teaching Model
Content
Structure
Variable
Instructional
Design
Variable
Figure 2. A Concept Teaching-Model (Tennyson &
Cocchiarella, 1986).
organization of materials and activities has been designed
by Berlin and White (1987). This model has two dimensions:
representational level (concrete-semiconcrete-abstract) and
movement (manipulated-animated-static) (see Figure 3). In
the first dimension, the concrete level involves physical
objects; the semiconcrete level includes pictures, drawings,
or images of physical objects; and scientific and
mathematical symbols, formulas, and text are used to
represent concepts at the abstract level. In the second
dimension, manipulation is a condition of observable change
in which the students actively interact with materials and
have a degree of control over the change; animation involves
an observable change, but the extent of that change cannot
be controlled by the students; and the static condition in
which either no change occurs or evidence of change can only
be inferred, not observed directly.
49
concrete
s
t
a
t
i
c
CONCRETE
STATIC
semiconcrete
SEMICONCRETE
STATIC
abstract
ABSTRACT
STATIC
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
a
n
i
m
a
t
e
d
CONCRETE
ANIMATED
SEMICONCRETE
ANIMATED
ABSTRACT
ANIMATED
m
a
n
i
P
u
1
a
t
e
d-
CONCRETE
MANIPULATED
SEMICONCRETE
MANIPULATED
ABSTRACT
MANIPULATED
concrete semiconcrete abstract
REPRESENTATIONAL LEVEL
Figure 3. General Instructional Model (Berlin & White,
1987) .
CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
This chapter contains seven sections. Section one
describes the design of the instructional model. Section two
deals with sampling and population in this study. The third
section describes four instruments administered to the
students. Section four introduces three treatments and the
research design. Section five describes the data analysis
procedures. Section six presents the research procedure in
this study.
Design
Development of Phvsics Concepts Instructional Design Model
Based on the findings of the theoretical model in
chapter II, a schema of instructional design for physics is
constructed on the the main cognitive learning theories of
Ausubel and Novak. Meaningful learning requires both a
meaningful learning set and the presentation of potentially
meaningful material to the learner. The meaningful material
should be nonarbitrarily and substantively related to an
appropriate cognitive structure and the learner's cognitive
structure needs to include relevant concepts to which new
learned material can be related. In the classroom, students'
50
51
learning is primarily concerned with the acquisition,
retention, and use of potentially meaningful information.
Thus Ausubel's theory accounts for the cognitive factors
crucially important in school instruction. Novak's learning
theory that focusing on concept and propositional learning
is based on Ausubel's theory, and the concept map presented
in Novak's learning strategy is designed to support
instructional approaches aimed at increasing meaningful
learning.
The concept-teaching model developed by Tennyson and
associates is viewed as being based upon two cognitive
learning processes: formation of conceptual knowledge and
development of procedural knowledge (Tennyson &
Cocchiarella, 1986). Conceptual knowledge is formed in
memory by the integrated storage of meaningful dimensions
selected from known examples and the connecting of this
entity in a given domain of information. Procedural
knowledge is developed by using conceptual knowledge to
solve domain-specific problems. The two processes have the
same meaning as Ausubel's meaningful learning. Based on this
theory of concept learning, the concept-teaching model
provides instructional design strategies for concept
teaching.
The general instructional model designed by Berlin and
White (1987) contains two dimensions: representational level
and movement. These dimensions are consistent with learning
52
theory and also reflect instructional practices valued in
science teaching.
Therefore, the physics concepts instructional design is
based on Ausubel's theory of meaningful learning and then
combined with Novak's concept map instructional strategy,
Berlin and White's general instructional model, and Tennyson
and Cocchiarella's concept-teaching model. The basic
schematic diagram of the design in this study can be seen in
Figure 4.
From the designated schema of the physics instructional
design, a physics concept teaching model can be constructed
as shown in Figure 5. In this model, the concept map is used
as the key pedagogical strategy for the whole and the
sections of a physics unit. These maps should be teacher-
made concept maps and they present the major background
concepts for a subsequent section of a unit of study. Thus
these concept maps emphasize the linking function of advance
organizers and they provide guidance to the students to
facilitate meaningful learning about concepts taught later.
The second part, definition and label, helps students
establish in memory the possible connection between existing
necessary knowledge and the to-be-learned concepts. The
third part, cognitive bridge, establishes the initial
encoding of conceptual knowledge. Because they do not need
53
Physics Instruction
Physics
Instructional
Design
Concept-
Teaching
Model
(Tennyson)
General \
Instructional \
Model \
(Berlin & White)
Cognitive
Learning
Theory
(Ausubel)
Concept
Map
Model
(Novak)
Figure 4. The Schema of the Physics Concept Instructional
Design.
54
Concept Teaching
Attribute
Prompting
Instructional
Resources
Interrogatory Examples
Attribute Feedback
Definition and Label
Expository Examples
Concept Map
of a Concept
Cognitive Bridge
Concept Map
of a Whole Unit
Figure 5. Physics Instructional Design Model
to be quantitative instances, they can be static or animated
teaching resources of concrete, semiconcrete, or abstract
levels, for example, experiment demonstration, picture,
film, computer simulation, and so on. Expository examples
provide elaborate and complete conceptual knowledge to
encode in students' cognitive structure. Interrogatory
examples enhance the development of procedural knowledge.
Some static or animated teaching resources are also
accompanied with the expository and interrogatory examples
if they are needed. The sixth part is attribute feedback and
attribute prompting. Attribute feedback elaborates
connections with other concepts and attribute prompting is a
means to help students to focus their attention in a given
example on the specific and unique characteristics of the
concept.
When the teaching of a concept of the physics unit is
completed, the next subconcept of the concept will be
taught. When students have completed the concept and the
subconcepts of the unit, they will go on to the next concept
of the unit until the whole unit is completed.
Based on the content of Inquiry into Physics (Ostdiek &
Bord, 1987) , the textbook for non-calculus college physics,
assignment readings, Physics in Perspective (Hecht, 1980)
and Seven Ideas that Shook the Universe, and reference
books, Conceptual Phvsics (Hewitt, 1989) and Physics an
Introduction (Bolemon, 1985), a physics unit on motion was
56
developed based on the physics concept teaching model. The
main concepts of the unit are position, velocity, and
acceleration. The teacher-made concept map of position as an
example is shown in figure 6. In this concept map, the
concept, position, and three subconcepts, average speed,
position-time graph, and slope, will be viewed as to-be-
learned new information. Other concepts concerned with the
concept position in the map are already known concepts. The
instructional design for the concept, position, is designed
based on the physics concept teaching model and is shown in
figure 7. In this design, position is a critical concept and
distance and selected reference point are variable concepts.
One case representation uses classroom and the classroom map
as teaching resources. Two examples and one nonexample are
used as the expository examples. One question is used as the
interrogatory example. Feedback attributes will be
implemented if necessary. Attribute promptings are added to
the appropriate concepts. The whole detailed instructional
design of the motion unit is in Appendix A.
57
Linear Motion
^ ---
concern
with
Direction^) (^Position^)
function
of
(^Positiv^T) <Negative^) <Distance> C^ T f IneZ^ )
with
respect
to
Time
elapsed
a. t
A reference
Point
concerned
with
Position-time
graph
concerned
with
Cgxample^)
Figure 6. The Teacher-Made Concept Map about Position.
58
Instructional Resources:
Classroom &
a classroom map
Attribute Prompting:
. underline
. diagram
Cognitive Bridge:
Where am I?
Interrogatory Examples:
. What is the position of
the OSU main library
from here?
Attribute Feedback:
. a selected reference point
. distance
. position
Expository Examples:
. McDonald's can be a
selected reference
point on street.
. McDonald's cannot be
a selected referenced
point in the store.
. Charley's position is
south of McDonald's
1600 yards.
Definition and Label:
Position is a measured distance with respect to a
selected reference point.
Figure 7. The Instructional Design for the Concept,
Position.
59
Sample and Population
Due to the Physics 101 teaching schedule, the motion
unit of introductory physics in this study will be performed
over a four week period in the Department of Physics of a
large midwestern University. Three classes, two in Autumn
quarter (N^ =53, N2 = 48) and one in Winter quarter (N3 =
86), will be used.
The students in each of these classes were required to
be present for the physics lecture sessions of the motion
unit and involved in testing during three weeks. This
included: (1) collecting pretest information from a physics
misconception test and a physics concept map test before the
motion unit being taught; (2) participating in three
sequential lecture sessions; and (3) collecting information
from posttests identical to the pretests; and finally (4)
administering a physics achievement test and physics
attitude test. Of the students who began the study (N =
187), 91 were dismissed from the study during data
collection. The main reason that students were removed from
the study was absence from one or more tests (the physics
concept map test, the physics misconception test, and the
physics achievement test) during the four weeks study. The
number of students having complete data and included in the
study was 96: class I (Nj^ = 24), class II (N2 = 26), and
class III (N3 = 46).
60
A comparison of the retained students with the students
deleted from the study was performed using a univariate
analysis of variance using the physics misconception
pretest. The result is presented in Table 1 and no
significant difference was indicated between the retained
and deleted students, F (1, 158) = .21, p < .651.
There were approximately twice as many males as females
(see Table 2).
The students are from different program fields and most
of them are majoring in agriculture, business, or education.
The crosstabulation of student number in each major area
among three classes is presented in Table 3.
Most of the students are from age 18 to age 22 and
Table 4 gives the age distribution among three classes.
Of further interest is that about two thirds of the
students have studied high school physics and about three
fourths of the students have studied high school chemistry.
The number of students studying high school physics and
chemistry for the three classes is presented in Table 5.
Moreover, only 4 students have ever studied advanced physics
and only 9 students have ever studied advanced chemistry in
high school.
61
Table 1
Univariate ANOVA on the Phvsics Misconception Pretest by
Retained/Deleted Group
Source df MS F p
Within Cells 158 4.27
Retain/Delete 1 .88 .21 .651
62
Table 2
Distribution by Gender among Three Classes
Class I Class II Class III Total
Male 16 19 26 61
Female 8 7 20 35
Total 24 26 46 96
Table 3
Distribution by Program Areas Majors among Three Classes
Major Class I Class II Class III
Agriculture 7 5 6
Business 4 9 15
Education 4 3 4
Arts & Science 6 1 9
Engineering 0 2 3
Journalism 1 1 3
Others 0 0 3
Undecided 2 5 3
Total 24 26 46
63
Table 4
Distribution by Acre among Three Classes
Age Class I Class II Class III
17 0 1 0
18 3 4 10
19 1 6 4
20 5 9 5
21 9 1 10
22 2 2 9
23 - 24 0 2 5
above 25 4 1 3
Total 24 26 46
64
Table 5
Distribution by High School Physics and Chemistry Course
among Three Classes
Class I
(Physics)
Class II Class III
Yes 9 20 31
No 15 6 15
total 24 26 46
(Chemistry)
Class I Class II Class III
Yes 19 23 34
No 5 3 12
total 24 26 46
65
Instrumentation
There are four instruments used to test students'
learning of physics concepts, physics misconceptions,
physics achievement, and attitude toward learning physics:
(1) physics concept map test, (2) physics misconception
test, (3) physics achievement test, and (4) physics learning
attitude test.
Concept man test
The physics concept map test uses the idea of concept
mapping designed by Novak (1984) as an evaluation tool to
evaluate students' physics conceptual structure. In this
test, an explanation and a detailed, step-by-step example
are introduced to students at first. The objective is to
advance the idea of concept mapping as a good way to help
students learn meaningfully and help them explicitly see the
nature and role of concepts and the relationship between
concepts as they exist in their mind. Next, the procedures
of the example will help students to extract known or
learned concepts from their existing cognitive structure
about motion and to identify the relationship among those
concepts. Moreover, the concept map example presents a way
to visualize concepts and the hierarchical relationships
between them. Three procedures are asked of students in
order to finish their own concept map:
(1) Several concepts about motion are presented to
66
students as recommendations and students can add more
concepts or delete concepts from the presented concepts.
(2) The most inclusive concept is to be put at the head
of a new list of rank-ordered concepts, then the next most
general, most inclusive concept(s) are listed, working
through the first list until all concepts are rank ordered.
(3) Students are asked to construct a concept map about
motion using the rank-ordered list as a guide in building
the concept hierarchy on a blank paper which only has a
concept word "motion" put at the top of this page and
circled by oval shape.
The rule of scoring scales is followed in Novak's
assigning numerical values (Novak, 1984; Ridley & Novak,
1988):
(1) A valid relationship between valid propositions or
a valid cross-link relationship is given 1 point.
(2) Each valid level of hierarchy is given 5 points
when maps are not symmetrical and the number of valid
hierarchies in the most branched segment of the map are
counted. If a concept map shows a linear string of words
which could not count as levels of hierarchies, it will be
counted as only one level,-or two levels if more concepts
are included.
(3) Each valid cross-link between two distinct segments
of the concept hierarchy is given 10 points.
(4) A valid example showing that the students know what
67
kind of event or object is designated by the concept label
is given 1 point.
About the validity of the concept map, Novak (1984)
noted that "the map may be said to have construct validity
in terms of evaluation theory". Also, "concept maps have an
epistemological as well as psychological validity as tools
for the assessment of learning" (Novak, 1984; Novak, Gowin,
& Johansen, 1983).
A copy of the concept map test is in Appendix B.
Phvsics Misconception Test
The items of the physics misconception test are
generated from the results of different research dealing
with the misconception of motion (Trowbridge & McDermott,
1980, 1981; Clement, 1982; Hewson, 1985; Halloun & Hestenes,
1985a, 1985b). Item 1 and item 2 are concerned with speed
comparison tasks. In these items the students are asked to
compare the simultaneous motions of two identical balls
rolling on parallel channels. In each item one of the balls
moves with nonuniform velocity and passes the other ball
twice. Item 3 is still concerned with a speed comparison
task, but no passing occurs between the two balls. The
students are asked to compare whether the two balls have the
same speed. Item 4 asks the students about the meaning of
one line parallel to a time-axis in a graph of position
versus time for an object. Item 5 is concerned with a
68
velocity versus time graph for two balls and it is used to
investigate students' confusion between the ideas of same
speed and same position. Item 6 is used to determine the
students' idea about speed two balls have as they are side
by side. Item 7 and item 8 are used to understand whether
the students use their correct concepts to interpret a graph
or an event. Item 9 to item 11 are used to find how the
students use their motion concepts to interpret a curved
graph and to inspect whether the students use correct
concepts to find the difference between the heights and
slopes of the graph.
These 11 items were examined and decided on by physics
experts in order to insure face and content validity for the
test. A copy of the test is in Appendix C.
Phvsics Achievement Test
The physics achievement test is a paper-and pencil test
designed to test students' knowledge after different
treatment conditions are implemented. The items of the test
are chosen from a physics question data base designed and
modified by Dr. Ploughe for many years and these items were
reviewed and decided on by him.
In the content of the test, item 1 is used to test
students' knowledge about the common motion unit in English
and metric system. Item 2 is used to test students' ideas
about the travel distance. Item 3, 4, 5, and 6 are used to
69
understand students' knowledge about Newton's laws of
motion. Item 7 (a), (b), and (c) test students understanding
about the differences among displacement, average speed, and
average velocity. Item 7 (d) and (e) are used to determine
how the students sketch a graph of distance versus time and
a graph of speed versus time. A copy of the test is in
Appendix D.
The most useful learning outcomes of achievement
testing are covered by the cognitive domain of the taxonomy:
knowledge, and intellectual abilities and skills (Gronlund,
1988). Thus the general learning outcomes of the achievement
test in this study are concerned with knowledge recall
(terms, classifications, and principles), translation,
application, and relationship. The knowledge level for the
test is given in Table 6. Note that half of the questions
belong to the field of application.
70
Table 6
Table of the Items of the Achievement Test bv Knowledge
Level
Knowledge Recall Transla- Applica- Relation-
Out- tion tion ship
comes Terms Classi- Princi-
fication pies
1 5(a) 3 6(a) 2 7(d)
4 7(e)
5(b)
6(b)
6(c)
7(a)
7(b)
7(c)
71
Physics Attitude Test
The physics learning attitude test which contains four
subtests is used to test students' beliefs, feelings, and
behavioral tendencies concerning learning physics concepts,
physics misconceptions, teaching physics concepts by the
professor, and concept mapping. The items for the physics
learning concepts attitude test are modified from items in
the Scientific Attitude Inventory (Moore & Sutman, 1970) and
the contents include intellectual and emotional physics
attitudes. The items for the physics misconception attitude
test are designed to test the level of beliefs about each
item of the physics misconception test. The items for the
physics teaching concepts attitude test are derived from
students' written responses, classroom observation, personal
interview, and professor's teaching experience. The items
for physics concept map attitude test are mostly adapted
from the designed items of student attitudes about concept
mapping (Arnandin, Mintzes, Dunn, & Shafer, 1984).
A list of 72 positive and negative statements were
phrased and listed as items in four attitude subtests. 18
items (item 1 to item 18) are in the physics learning
concepts attitude test, 12 items (item 19 to item 30) are in
the physics misconception attitude test, 21 items (item 31
to item 51) are in the physics teaching concept attitude
test, and 21 items (item 52 to item 72) are in the physics
concept map attitude test. Wording of all of these
72
statements was kept easily readable and understandable. No
items involved compound sentences or concepts. A Likert
scale was devised for student responses: strongly disagree,
moderately disagree, slightly disagree, undecided or no
opinion, slightly agree, moderately agree, and strongly
agree. A panel of three professors evaluated the items for
construct validity and for clarity and some of the items
were revised after the result of this evaluation.
The 72 items were pilot tested with a group 40 physics
101 college students. Four item analyses for the four
attitude subtests were performed by SPSS-X subprogram
RELIABILITY (SPSS, 1990) in IBM 3081-D mainframe computer.
For the sake of improving reliability without reducing many
items, items in each of the subtests were carefully chosen
from their correlation matrix and their correlated item-
total correlation (Mueller, 1986; Cronbach, 1984; Downle &
Heath, 1974; Carmines & Zeller, 1979). The 14 items in the
learning concepts attitude test, 10 items in the
misconception attitude test, 13 items in the teaching
concepts attitude test, and 21 items in the concept map test
were thus retained to maximize reliability.
A second item analysis was run with the refined items
scale. Reliability in the physics learning concepts attitude
test was .82, the physics misconception attitude test was
.62, the physics teaching concepts attitude test was .82,
and the physics concept map attitude test was .93. The
means, standard deviations, and item-total correlation of
each attitude test are presented in Table 7, 8, 9, and 10.
A copy of the original attitude test is presented in
Appendix E.
In conclusion, the contents for each of the four
instruments designed to test students' concepts,
misconceptions, achievement, and attitudes are listed in
Figure 8.
74
Table 7
Means. Standard Deviations, and Item-Total Correlations for
the Physics Learning Concept Attitude Test
Item-Total
Item M SD Correlation
1 5.08 1.25 .59
2 5.43 1.22 .71
3 5.83 1.30 .61
4 6.23 1.21 .54
5 5.08 1.14 .51
6 4.98 1.72 .56
7 4.63 1.10 .58
8 3.23 1.37 . 66
12 3.93 1.51 .66
13 4.83 1.58 .31
14 5.43 1.06 .12
15 4.78 1.56 .17
17 5. 53 1. 30 . 14
18 5.73 1.24 .31
Alpha = .82
75
Table 8
Means. Standard Deviations, and Item-Total Correlations for
the Phvsics Misconception Attitude Test
Item-Total
Item M SD Correlation
2 5.60 2.01 . 50
3 5.20 2 .10 .26
4 5.93 2.21 .15
5 4.83 2.60 .51
6 6.25 1.55 .11
7 4.55 2.60 .21
8 3.93 2.59 .27
9 4.88 2.42 .42
11 5.70 1.02 .23
12 5.40 1.41 .31
Alpha = .62
76
Table 9
Means. Standard Deviations, and Item-Total Correlations for
the Physics Teaching Concept Attitude Test
Item-Total
Item M SD Correlation
1 5.30 1.29 .57
2 4.23 1.35 .49
3 4.38 1.39 .61
4 5.03 1.33 .51
6 5.25 1.13 .46
7 4.43 1.15 .50
8 3.60 1.36 .49
9 5.58 1.13 .33
13 5.38 1.33 .28
16 4.60 1.19 .45
17 5.23 1.56 .49
18 5.13 1.56 .42
21 5.13 1. 38 .48
Alpha = .82
Table 10
Means. Standard Deviations, and Item-Total Correlations for
the Phvsics Concept Map Attitude Test
Item M SD
Item-Total
Correlation
1 4.03 1.51 .48
2 3 .25 1.41 .42
3 3.50 1.57 .49
4 3.03 1.31 .59
5 3.18 1.36 .43
6 1.98 1.23 .48
7 3.45 1.71 .75
8 3.45 1.57 .82
9 2.10 1.32 .63
10 4.28 1.80 .48
11 4.05 1.81 .58
12 3.78 1.91 .69
13 3.40 1.65 .83
14 3 .73 1.57 .78
15 3.75 1.64 .75
16 3.23 2.02 .67
17 2.65 1.69 .59
(Continue)
78
Table 10 (Continue)
Means. Standard Deviations, and Item-Total Correlations for
the Phvsics Concept Map Attitude Test
Item M SD
Item-Total
Correlation
18 2.65 1.49 .49
19 1.78 1.12 .54
20 2.40 1.58 .74
21 3.35 1.93 .64
Alpha = .93
79
Name Contents
Physics concept map test Proposition
Hierarchy
Link
Example
Physics misconception test Position
Velocity
Acceleration
Graph
Physics achievement test Motion
Physics attitude test Learning concept
Misconception beliefs
Teaching concept
Concept mapping
Figure 8. The Name and Contents of Experiment Instruments
80
Research Design
The three group experimental design is used to test the
hypotheses. The first group, using physics traditional
teaching method, is given introduction of concept map,
presentation of definition(s), one or two examples, and
teacher's demonstration(s). The second group, using the
physics example-nonexample teaching method in the classroom,
is given introduction of concept map, presentation of
definition(s), example(s) and nonexample(s), and teaching
demonstration(s). The third group, using the physics concept
teaching method in the classroom, is given introduction of
concept map, presentation of a concept map made by teacher,
definition(s) and label(s), cognitive bridge, example(s) and
nonexample(s), interrogatory example(s) if it is needed,
teacher's demonstration(s), and attribute feedback if it is
needed. Because the third group needs more time to be taught
and many students have trouble keeping up with the stream of
new notation (Shea & Taylor, 1990), the copies of concept
definition(s) and the questions of examples, nonexamples,
and interrogatory examples are printed and given to each
student. The printed course copies are in Appendix F. The
concept teaching sequence among three treatments is shown in
Figure 9. The mode of instruction in this study is shown in
Figure 10.
81
Group I II III
Physics Physics Physics
Teaching Traditional Example-nonexample Concept
Method Teaching Teaching Teaching
Method Method Method
Teaching
Sequence
Introduction of Introduction of Introduction of
Concept Map Concept Map Concept Map
Definition
and
Label
Example(s)
Demonstration
Definition
and
Label
Example(s)
I
Nonexample(s)
Demonstration
Concept
Map
Presentation
Definition
and
Label
I
Cognitive
Bridge
I
Example(s)
Nonexample(s)
Interrogatory
Example(s)
Demonstration
Attribute
Feedback
Figure 9. The Concept Teaching Sequence among Three
Treatments.
82
Table 11
The Mode of Physics Instruction
Lecture/ Visual
Procedure Hand-out Discussion Aids
Introduction of Concept Map X
Concept Map Presentation X X
Definition & Label X X
Cognitive Bridge X X
Example X X
Nonexample X X
Interrogatory Example X X
Demonstration X X
Attribute Feedback X
Therefore, the independent variables in this study are
physics concept teaching method, physics example-nonexample
teaching method, and physics traditional teaching method.
The demographic data collected for the subjects are gender,
age, major, grade, and high school science course status.
The dependent variables of this study are scores of the
physics concept map pretest and posttest, scores of the
physics misconception pretest and posttest, scores of the
physics achievement test, and scores of the physics attitude
test.
This research design can be diagrammed in Figure 10.
In order to follow the physics 101 teaching schedule
for each quarter, the concept map pretest and posttest was
administered in the physics laboratory or classroom. The
misconception pretest and posttest were administered in the
classroom and the posttest was also used as the physics 101
second quiz. The achievement test was used as students'
first midterm test and the attitude test was administered in
either the classroom or laboratory.
84
Class I 01 02 XI 03 04 05 06
Class II 01 02 X2 03 04 05 06
Class III 01 02 X3 03 04 05 06
01: Concept map pretest
02: Misconception pretest
03: Concept map posttest
04: Misconception posttest
05: Achievement test
06: Attitude test
XI: Physics traditional
teaching method
X2: Physics example-nonexample
teaching method
X3: Physics concept
teaching method
Figure 10. Physics Concept Teaching and Learning Research
Design
85
Analysis
1. The Pearson r was used to compare the relationships
among scores for the concept map test, the misconceptions
test, the achievement test, and the attitude test for the
three groups separately.
2. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
(Tatsuoka, 1988; Stevens, 1986; Bray & Maxwell, 1985) was
used to compare the three groups concerning their scores for
the physics concept map pretest and the physics
misconception pretest.
3. Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA)
(Huitena, 1980; Stevens, 1986; Wildt & Ahtola, 1978) was
used to compare the three groups concerning their dependent
variables: scores on the physics concept map posttest,
scores on the physics misconception posttest, and scores on
the physics achievement test, and their covariates: scores
on the physics concept map pretest and scores on the physics
misconception pretest. Post hoc comparisons (Discriminate
Analysis and Univariate Analysis) were used as appropriate.
4. The MANCOVA was used to compare the three groups
concerning their dependent variables: scores on the physics
learning concept attitude test, scores on the physics
misconception attitude test, scores on the physics teaching
concept attitude test, and scores on the physics concept map
attitude test, and their covariates: scores on the physics
concept map pretest and scores on the physics misconception
86
pretest. Post hoc comparison (Discriminate Analysis or
Univariate Analysis) was used as appropriate.
5. The two-factor repeated measures MANCOVA was used to
compare the three groups from pre to post testing time using
the scores of the physics concept map pre- and posttest and
the physics misconception pre- and posttest. Post hoc
comparison (Discriminate Analysis or Univariate Analysis)
were used as appropriate.
6. The Multivariate Regression (Cohen & Cohen, 1983;
Stevens, 1986) was used in each of the three groups to
predict the three dependent variables, scores on the physics
concept map posttest, scores on the physics misconception
posttest, and scores on the physics achievement test, from a
set of predictors, the four physics attitude subtests.
Procedures
The presentation of the physics concept map pre- and
posttest for each of the treatment groups was the same: four
pages of general directions, one page of physics concept
construction, and one page of concept map construction. The
presentation of the physics misconception pre- and posttest
for each of the treatment groups was also the same: 5 pages
of 11 multiple-choice questions accompanied with a diagram
for each question. Students from each group were in the same
teaching session. Test responses were made on NCS answer
sheets. The physics achievement test was implemented as the
first midterm test. The physics learning attitude test was
implemented in the classroom after the kinematic unit
lecture and experiments were finished.
A detailed flow chart of the research procedure and
time table using weeks as the basic unit are in Figure 11 and
Figure 12.
88
(Group I) (Group II) (Group III)
Concept map posttest
Attitude test
Misconception posttest
Misconception pretest
Physics achievement test
Concept map pretest
Traditional
Teaching
Method
(Group I) (Group III)
Concept
Teaching
Method
Example-Nonexample
Teaching
Method
(Group II)
Figure 11. Data Collection Procedure.
89
Content Time Location Group
Concept map pretest (Au week 2 Smith 3095 I & II
Misconception pretest (Au week 2 Smith 1009 I & II
Misconception posttest (Au week 4 Smith 1009 I & II
Concept map posttest (Au week 4 Smith 3095 I & II
Achievement test (Au week 5 Smith 1009 I & II
Attitude test (Au week 5 Smith 3095 I & II
Concept map pretest (Wi week 1 Smith 1009 III
Misconception pretest (Wi week 1 Smith 1009 III
Misconception posttest (Wi week 3 Smith 1009 III
Concept map posttest (Wi week 3 Smith 1009 III
Achievement test (Wi week 4 Smith 1009 III
Attitude test (Wi week 4 Smith 1009 III
Figure 12. Time Table.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This chapter presents the data obtained from the study
and analyzes these data in relation to each of the questions
stated in Chapter I. Each section in the following will
present the hypotheses, the method of data analysis, and the
findings relevant to the hypotheses.
Cognitive Learning Effect
The first hypothesis discussed in this study is:
There is no significant relationship among the three groups
of non-science students on measures of their learning
physics concepts, their physics misconceptions, and their
physics achievement after three teaching methods being
implemented.
Because this study wishes to examine the effect of the
three different teaching methods on the three variables: the
physics concept map test, the physics misconception test,
and physics achievement test and the subjects are pretested
on the two variables: the physics concept map pretest and
physics misconception pretest. The best way of dealing with
elimination of systematic bias and reduction of within group
or error variance is through multivariate analysis of
90
91
covariance (MANCOVA).
Before using MANCOVA to test the first hypothesis, two
assumptions regarding the regression part of the covariance
analysis should be tested: a linear relationship between the
dependent variables and the covariates and homogeneity of
the regression hyperplanes.
The means and standard deviations of the scores of the
physics concept map pretest and posttest, scores of the
physics misconception pretest and posttest, and scores of
the physics achievement test among three groups are
presented in Table 12.
The two covariates, scores of the physics concept map
pretest and scores of the physics misconception pretest,
have a low correlation (r = -.04, p < .72), thus they can
remove relative distinct portions of error variance from the
dependent variables, which are the scores of physics concept
map posttest, the scores of physics misconception posttest,
and the scores of physics achievement test.
The multivariate test for significant regression of the
dependent variables on the covariates is significant (see
Table 13), Wilk's Approx. F (6,178) = 3.734, p < .002. This
test indicates that there is a linear relationship between
the dependent variables and the covariates.
Next, the two covariates are lumped together into a
single effect and tested by the multivariate test for
parallelism of regression hyperplanes. In Table 13, the
92
Table 12
Sample Size. Means, and Standard Deviations of the Phvsics
Concept Map Pretest and Posttest. Phvsics Misconception
Pretest and Posttest, and Phvsics Achievement Test Among
Three Groups
Example-
Traditional Nonexample Concept
teaching teaching teaching
method method method
(Group I) (Group II) (Group III)
N = 24 N = 26 N =46
pre- post- pre- post- pre- post-
Test test test test test test test
Physics concept map
test
M 16.96 28.58 16.39 26.12 13.52 35.76
SD 6.24 8.26 7.73 9.89 7.41 10.66
Physics misconception
test
M 5.17 5.33 5.12 5.50 4.94 5.70
SD 1.83 1.95 1.53 2.42 2.03 2.04
Physics achievement
test
M 79.17 76.27 81.24
SD 14.45 12.08 12.70
93
Table 13
Multivariate Tests of Regression Effect for the Relationship
between Dependent Variables. Phvsics Concept Map Posttest.
Phvsics Misconception Posttest, and Phvsics Achievement
Test, and Covariates. Phvsics Concent map Pretest and
Phvsics Misconception Pretest
Test name Value Approx. F Hypoth. df Error df Sig. of F
Wilks .79 3.73 6 178 .002
Multivariate Test for Parallelism of Rearession Hvoerolanes
Test name Value Approx. F Hypoth. df Error df Sig. of F
Wilks .79 1.74 12 225.18 .060
94
multivariate test for this assumption is required to combine
the two covariates, the misconception pretest and concept
map pretest, by group interaction together here. Since the
multivariate Wilk's Approx. F (12, 225) = 1.74, p < .06, is
not significant, it indicates that the assumption of
homogeneity of the regression hyperplanes is tenable here at
the 0.05 level.
The main result for the multivariate analysis of
covariance to determine whether the adjusted group mean
vectors are significantly different is in Table 14. The
Wilk's Approx. F (6, 178) = 3.94 is significant , p < .001.
The univariate analyses of covariance indicates that the
physics concept map posttest is contributing to the overall
multivariate significance at the 0.05 level. The physics
misconception posttest and physics achievement test are not.
Since the two covariates are used in this study, a
Bryant-Paulson (BP) procedure is incorporated into the post
hoc procedure following MANCOVA (Stevens 1986; Bryant &
Paulson, 1976) . It is a generalization of the Tukey
technique. Also, because the three group sizes in the study
are unequal, the harmonic mean is employed. In Table 15, two
significant differences between the adjusted means on the
physics misconception posttest for group 1 and 3 and group 2
and 3 at the .95 simultaneous level are found. The BP value
4.95 and 6.40 indicates that the concept teaching method on
concept map construction is more effective than the
95
Table 14
Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Covariance:
Treatment Effect on the Phvsics Concept Map Posttest, the
Phvsics Misconception Posttest, and the Phvsics Achievement
Test with the Phvsics Concept Map Pretest and the Phvsics
Misconception Pretest as covariates
Test name Value Approx. F Hypoth. df Error df Sig. of F
Wilks .779 3.94 6 178 .001
Variable Hypoth. MS Error MS F (2,91) p
Concept Map Test 1109.79 92.05 12.06 .000
Misconception Test 3.59 3.95 .91 .407
Achievement Test 197.08 170.72 1.15 .320
96
Table 15
Brvant-Paulson Comparisons on Phvsics Concept Map Test
Comparison group Adjusted means BP value
1/2 28.04, 25.81 1.15
1/3 28.04, 36.61 4.95*
2,3 25.81, 36.61 6.40*
* Critical value for BP procedure (df = 90, c = 2, <X = .05)
= 3.42
97
traditional teaching method and the example-nonexample
teaching method. The BP value 1.15 shows that there is no
significant difference between the traditional teaching
method and the example-nonexample teaching method for
students' concept map construction as hypothesized.
Discriminant Analysis is also used here. SPSS-X MATRIX
DATA reads raw materials from previous MANCOVA procedure and
converts them to a matrix system file that can be read by
SPSS DISCRIMINANT procedure that handle matrix materials. In
Table 16, the eigenvalues are .28 and .01 and only the first
discriminant function is significant because 96% of the
total association is partitioned to it. The means (Group
centroids) of the two canonical discriminant functions for
the three groups were in Table 17. A plot of the centroids
is shown in Figure 13. The graph clearly shows that the
first discriminant function sets the group 3 (the concept
teaching method) apart from the groups 1 and 2 (the
traditional teaching method and the example-nonexample
teaching method). Examining the standardized discriminant
function coefficients in Table 18, the first discriminant
function seems to be interpretable as primarily by the
variable, physics concept map posttest, since the
coefficient of it is .98. The next variable, physics
achievement test, is weak and its coefficient is .15. The
coefficient of the variable misconception posttest is only
-.06.
98
Table 16
Test of Significance for Discriminant Functions about
V U 4.
Concent Mao Posttest. and Phvsics Achievement Test
Root no. Eigenvalue Percent
of Variance
Cumulative
Percent
Canonical
Correlation
1 .28 96.58 96.58 .47
2 .01 3.42 100.00 .10
After
function
Wilks'
Lambda
Chi-
squared D. F. Sig.
0
1
.78
O O
23.44
n n
6 .001
c.'in
99
Table 17
Canonical Discriminant Functions Evaluated at Group
Centroids of the Phvsics Misconception Posttest. Phvsics
Concept Map Posttest, and Phvsics Achievement Test
Group Function 1 Function 2
1 -.35 -.16
2 -.62 . 11
3 .53 . 02
* 2
Function 2
.3
.2
.1
-.6 -.5 -.4 -.3
. 1
.4 .5
Function 1
-.1 0 .1 .2
-.1
-.2
-.3
Figure 13. The Three Group Centroids of the Physics
Misconception Posttest, the Physics Concept Map
Posttest, and the Physics Achievement Test in the
Discriminant-Function Space
100
Table 18
Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients of Dependent
Variables
Variable Function 1
Misconception Posttest
Concept Map Posttest
Achievement Test
-.06
.98
.15
101
Because the physics concept map test is composed of
four parts: Proposition, Hierarchy, Cross-Link, and Example,
which are stated in Chapter III, multivariate analysis of
covariance is used to analyze the data and to determine
which part causes the concept teaching method to improve
students' cognitive structure more than the other two
teaching methods. The means and standard deviations of the
four parts for each group is shown in Table 19.
The two covariates, scores of the physics concept map
pretest and scores of the physics misconception pretest, are
used and have a low correlation (r = -.04, p < .72).
The multivariate test for significant regression of the
dependent variables, four parts of the concept map test:
proposition, hierarchy, link, and example, on the covariates
is not quite significant (Wilk's Approx. F (8, 178) = 1.8, p
< .078), but the two covariates lumped together into a
single effect and tested by the multivariate test for
parallelism of regression hyperplanes is not significant
(Wilk's Approx. F (16, 260) = 0.86, p < .614) (see Table
20); that is, the assumption of homogeneity of the
regression hyperplanes is quite tenable here at the .05
level.
The main effect for the multivariate analysis of
covariance to determine whether the adjusted group mean
vectors are different is in Table 21 and the Wilk's Approx.
F (8, 178) = 3.09 is significant, p < .003. Also, the
102
Table 19
Sample Size. Means, and Standard Deviations of the
Proposition. Hierarchy. Cross-Link, and Example of the
Concept Map Posttest among Three Groups
Traditional
teaching
method
(Group I)
Example
teaching
method
(Group II)
Concept
teaching
method
(Group III)
N = 24 N = 26 N = 46
Proposition
M 13.67 12.69 15.17
SD 3.62 5.17 4.74
Hierarchy
M 2.96 2.58 3.83
SD 1.23 1.14 1.27
Link
M .00 .04 . 11
SD .00 .20 .24
Example
M .13 . 15 .11
SD . 34 .37 .31
103
Table 20
Multivariate Tests of Regression Effect for the Relationship
between Dependent Variables. Four Parts of the Concept Map
Test, and Covariates. Concept Map Pretest and Misconception
Pretest
Test name Value Approx. F Hypoth. df Error df Sig. of F
Wilks .86 1.81 8 178 .078
Multivariate Test for Parallelism of Regression Hvoerplanes
Test name Value Approx. F Hypoth. df Error df Sig. of F
Wilks .85 .86 16 260.32 .614
104
Table 21
Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Covariance;
Treatment Effect on the Concept Map Posttest with the
Phvsics Concept Map Pretest and the Phvsics Misconception
Pretest as Covariates
Test name Value Approx. F Hypoth. df Error df Sig. of F
Wilks .771 3.091 8 178 .003
Variable Hypoth. MS Error MS F(2,92)
E
Proposition 86.60 19.46 4.45 .014
Hierarchy 19.96 1.47 11.53 .000
Link .09 .06 1.59 .209
Example .02 .11 .19 .830
105
univariate analysis of covariance indicates that the
proposition and hierarchy of concept map posttest are
contributing to the overall multivariate significance at the
.05 level.
The Bryant-Paulson (BP) procedure (Stevens 1986; Bryant
& Paulson, 1976) is incorporated into the post hoc procedure
following MANCOVA, and the harmonic mean of group size is
also used. In Table 22, only one significant difference
between the adjusted means on the proposition of the concept
map posttest for group 2 and 3 at the .95 simultaneous level
is found, and it indicates that concept teaching method on
the proposition of the concept map construction is more
effective than the example-nonexample teaching method.
Moreover, two significant difference between the adjusted
means on the hierarchy of the concept map posttest for group
1 and 3 and group 2 and 3 at the .95 simultaneous level are
found (see Table 23) and they thus indicate that concept
teaching method on the hierarchy of the concept map
construction is more effective than the traditional teaching
method and the example-nonexample teaching method.
Discriminant Analysis and SPSS-X MATRIX DATA procedure
are used again here. In Table 24, the eigenvalues are .29
and .01 and only the first discriminant function is
Table 22
Brvant-Paulson Comparisons on the Proposition of the Phvsics
Concept Map Test
Comparison group Adjusted means BP value
1,2 13.38, 12.54 0.94
1,3 13.38, 15.61 2.82
2,3 12.54, 15.61 3.95*
* Critical value for BP
= 3.42
procedure (df = 90, C = 2, <* = .05)
Table 23
Brvant-Paulson Comparisons on the Hierarchv of the Phvsics
Concent Man Test
Comparison group Adjusted means BP value
1,2 2.91, 2.54 1.51
1,3 2.91, 3.90 4.56*
2,3 2.54, 3.90 6.31*
* Critical value for BP procedure (df = 90, c = 2, = .05)
= 3.42
107
Table 24
Test of Significance for Discriminant Functions about
Examole of the Concent Mao Test
Root no. Eigenvalue Percent Cumulative Canonical
of Variance Percent Correlation
1 .29 96.35 96.35 . 47
2 .01 3.65 100.00 . 10
After Wilks' Chi-
function Lambda squared D. F. Sig.
0 .77 24.51 8 . 002
1 .99 1.01 3 .799
significant. The group centroids of the two canonical
discriminant functions for the three groups are in Table 25.
A plot of the centroids is shown in Figure 14. The graph
clearly shows that the first discriminant function sets the
group 3 (the concept teaching method) apart from groups 1
and 2 (the traditional teaching method and the example-
nonexample teaching method). Examining the standardized
discriminant function coefficients in Table 26, the
discriminant function indicates that differences are
primarily due to the hierarchy of the concept map test with
a coefficient of .89. The two variables, the proposition and
the example of the concept map test, are the next variables
and their coefficients are .23 and -.24. The variable, the
cross-link of the concept map test, is weak in the function
and its coefficient is only -.01.
109
Table 25
Canonical Discriminant Functions Evaluated at Group
Centroids of the Concept Map Test
Group Function 1 Function 2
1 -.32 -.19
2 -.67 .07
3 .53 .06
Function 2
.3
.2
.1
6 -.5 -.4 -.3 -.2 -.1 0
-.1
1 -.2
-.3
.1 .4 .5
Function l
Figure 14. The Three Group Centroids of the Concept Map Posttest
in the Discriminant-Function Space
110
Table 26
Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients of Dependent
Variables
Variable Function 1
Proposition .23
Hierarchy .89
Cross-Link -.01
Example -.24
Ill
Cognitive Teaching Effect
The second hypothesis discussed in this study is:
There is no significant difference between before and
after each different teaching method being implemented by
three groups of non-science students on measures of their
learning physics concepts and their physics misconceptions.
Since all subjects of this study are being used
repeatedly to take the same physics concept map test and the
physics misconception test before and after three different
teaching methods being implemented, the repeated measure
design is appropriate in this study (Kennedy 1984; Stevens,
1986). Thus, a one-between and one-within multivariate
factorial analysis of variance will be used to test the
hypothesis in this section. Here, the three teaching methods
represent the between variable and the pretests and
posttests of physics concept map and physics misconception
represent the within, or the repeated measures factor.
Because the multivariate repeated measures analysis
comprises a class of situations where each group of subjects
is measured on the same concept map test and misconception
test on both the pretest and posttest, the contrast type of
the two tests, that is, the trend analysis, is appropriate
in the MANOVA program.
The multivariate test of groups by pre- and post-test
is given in Table 27 and yields significance at the 0.05
level (Wilk's Approx. F (4,184) = 6.95, p < .000). In other
112
words, the misconception posttest and concept map posttest
are significantly different from the misconception pretest
and concept map pretest over the three different teaching
methods.
Next, multivariate repeated measures analysis of the
misconception test and of the concept map test are tested
separately by using contrast type. In Table 28, tests
involving misconception pretest and posttest are not
significant at the 0.05 level (F = 3.14, p < .079). However,
in Table 29, the interaction of group by concept map pretest
and posttest is significant (F = 14.89, g < .000) and
implies that the linear relationship is different for the
groups.
The significant group and linear trend (the concept map
Pre- and post-test) interaction implies that the nature of
the linear relationship is different for the groups. The
plot of the groups in Figure 15 shows that the interaction
is caused by group 3 using the concept teaching method. Note
that groups 1 and 2 using the traditional teaching method
and example-nonexample teaching method are essentially
parallel, but that group 3 is not parallel to groups 1 and
2. Therefore, the findings reveal that the null hypothesis
is rejected. Also, the concept teaching method can improve
more subjects' concept map structure in physics learning
than the other two teaching methods.
113
Table 27
Multivariate Tests of the Effect of Concept Map and
Misconception Pre-Post-Tests and the Effect of Group bv Pre-
Post-Tests
Test name Value Approx. F Hypoth. df Error df p
Effect: pre-post-test
Wilks .35 84.20 2 92 .000
Effect: Group by pre-post-test
Wilks .755 6.95 4 184 .000
114
Table 28
Within-Subiect Effect on the Phvsics Misconception Test
Source df MS F

Within cells 93 . 2.69

Pre-Post-Test 1 8.45 3.14 .079
Group by Pre-Post-Test 2 1.53 .57 .567
Table 29
Within-Subiect Effect on the Phvsics Concent Mao Test
Source df MS F

Within cells 93 54.88

Pre-Post-Test 1 9328.38 169.99 . 000
Group by Pre-Post-Test 2 817.03 14.89 .000
115
35
30
25
20
15
10
Pretest Posttest
Figure 15. Interaction between the Three Teaching Methods
and the Concept Map Pretest and Posttest
116
Learning Physics Attitude Effect
The third hypothesis discussed in this study is:
There are no significant relationships among three
groups of non-science students on measures of their physics
learning concept attitude, physics misconception attitude,
physics teaching concept attitude, and physics concept map
attitude after three teaching methods being implemented.
The three group MANCOVA is used to simultaneously
compare the three teaching methods on four dependent
variables: the attitude of learning physics, the attitude of
physics misconception, the attitude of instructor's teaching
physics, and the attitude of concept map construction. The
means and standard deviations of the scores of the four
attitudes are presented in Table 30.
In the process of MANCOVA, the two covariates are
scores of the physics concept map pretest and scores of the
physics misconception pretest. The multivariate test for
significant regression of the four dependent variables on
the covariates is significant (see Table 31), Wilk's Approx.
F (8, 142) = 2.12, p < .037. Thus multivariate test
indicates that there is a significant relationship between
the set of dependent variables and the set of covariates at
the .05 level. In the same Table, the multivariate test for
the two covariates which are combined together into a single
effect and tested for parallelism of regression hyperplanes
is not significant, thus the assumption of homogeneity of
117
the regression hyperplanes is tenable here at the .05 level,
since Wilk's Approx. F (16, 205.33) = 1.089, p < .368.
The main effect for the multivariate analysis of
covariance to determine whether the adjusted group mean
vectors are significantly different is in Table 32 and
indicates that it is not significant, Wilk's Approx. F (8,
142) = .52, p < .837. Since it is not significant at the
.05 level, the null hypothesis is not rejected and it may be
concluded that the three teaching methods do not differ
overall on the set of the four attitude subtests.
Table 33 indicates the means of these items in the
physics attitude test on the responses of the whole valid
subjects. The item response frequency is listed in the
Appendix H.
118
Table 30
Means and Standard Deviations of Four Attitude Tests
Variable Group
M
SD
Learning Concept
Traditional teaching method 68.47 13.33
Example teaching method 71.88 8. 68
Cognitive teaching method 68.89 9.12
Physics misconception
Traditional teaching method 51.95 8.80
Example teaching method 52.24 10.07
Cognitive teaching method 54.29 8.32
Teaching concept
Traditional teaching method 63.63 10.77
Example teaching method 62.06 9.20
Cognitive teaching method 63.71 8.59
Concept map
Traditional teaching method 64.68 24.02
Example teaching method 68.35 21.94
Cognitive teaching method 64.10 22.50
119
Table 31
Multivariate Tests of Regression Effect for the Relationship
between Dependent Variables. Four Attitude Subtests, and
Covariates. Concept Map Pretest and Misconception Pretest
Test name Value Approx. F Hypoth. df Error df Sig. of F
Wilks .80 2 .12 8 142 .037
Multivariate Test for Parallelism of Recrression Hvoerulanes
Test name Value Approx. F Hypoth. df Error df Sig. of F
Wilks .78 1.09 16 205.33 .368
Table 32
Multivariate Analysis of Covariance: Treatment Group Effect
Test of Four Parts of the Concept Map Posttest
Test name Value Approx. F Hypoth. df Error df Sig. of F
Wilks .94 .52 8 142 .837
120
Table 33
Means of the Phvsics Attitude Test
Item Mean Item Mean Item Mean Item Mean
Learn1 5.00 Mis3 5.28 Teach8 3.53 Map9 2 . 06
Learn2 5.32 Mis4 5.89 Teach9 5.62 Map 10 3.86
Learn3 5.73 Mis5 4.81 Teachl3 5.28 Map 11 3 .94
Learn4 6.17 Mis6 6.15 Teachl6 4.43 Map 12 3.65
Learn5 5.01 Mis7 4.71 Teachl7 5.35 Map 13 3.35
Learn6 4.90 Mis8 4.14 Teachl8 5.33 Mapl4 3.76
Learn7 4.61 Mis9 5.62 Teach21 5. 03 Mapl5 3.77
Learn8 3.28 Misll 5.47 Mapl 3.54 Map 16 3.43
Learnl2 3.63 Misl2 5.34 Map 2 3.00 Map 17 2.85
Learnl3 4.84 Teachl 5.32 Map 3 3.22 Map 18 2.80
Learnl4 5.23 Teach2 4.54 Map 4 2.76 Map 19 2.10
Learnl5 4.63 Teach3 4.41 Map5 3.06 Map20 2.39
Learnl7 5.25 Teach4 4.86 Map 6 1.96 Map21 3.46
Learnl8 5.68 Teach5 5.29 Map7 3.10
Mis2 5.60 Teach7 4.37 Map8 3.25
Learn - Physics Learning Attitude Test
Mis - Physics Misconception Attitude Test
Teach - Physics Teaching Concept Attitude Test
Map - Physics Concept Map Attitude Test
121
Multivariate Regression Effect
The fourth hypothesis in this study is:
There is no significant set of four variables, physics
learning concept attitude, physics misconception attitude,
physics teaching concept attitude, and physics concept map
attitude, within each of the three groups of non-science
students for predicting the results of physics
misconceptions, physics concept map, and physics
achievement.
Because this study is investigating the relationship
between several dependent variables and a set of predictors
and attempting to predict the several dependent variables
from the set of predictors, the use of canonical analysis
and multivariate regression is appropriate. The dependent
variables of each group are the scores of the physics
misconception posttest, the physics concept map posttest,
and the physics achievement test. The predictors are scores
from the four attitude tests: physics learning concept
attitude, physics misconception attitude, physics teaching
concept attitude, and physics concept map attitude.
Traditional teaching method
The correlational table of the relationships between
the predictors and the dependent variables in group 1 is
presented in Table 34. A number of significant correlates
are shown between predictors and the dependent variables as
122
physics misconception attitude and misconception posttest (r
= .54, p < .05), physics teaching concept attitude and
achievement test (r = .44, p < .05), etc. Also, most of the
intercorrelations among predictors are not significant. The
R2 values of the misconception posttest, the concept map
posttest, and the achievement test are .48, .47, and .42 and
they are around .50 which occurs quite frequently with
educational and psychological data (Stevens, 1986) . The
multivariate regression can be confidently used.
The eigenvalues and canonical correlations on group 1
(Table 35) showed that only one significant canonical
correlation (Rj^ = .82, p < .001) is appropriate here. The
standardized coefficients for the canonical variates along
with the canonical variate-variable correlations are
presented in Table 35. Examining the correlations and the
standardized coefficients in the table, students with the
physics misconception attitude and the physics concept map
attitude rate high on measures of the physics misconception
posttest and the physics concept map posttest.
The multivariate regression analysis in Table 36
indicates that a significant relationship between the three
dependent variables and the four predictors is found (Wilk's
Approx. F (12, 32) = 2.34, p < .028). The univariate
analysis of the dependent variables using the four attitude
tests as predictors is in Table 37 and indicates that the
physics misconception posttest is significantly related to
123
the set of predictors at the .05 level (F = 3.19, p < .047).
In order to understand which one is relevant to the
criterion, misconception posttest, a multiple regression
using stepwise method as the prediction selection procedure
is used to test the four attitude subtests. In Table 38, it
indicates that only concept map attitudes has the highest
simple correlation with the criterion (Multiple R = .47).
Example-nonexamole teaching method
The correlation table of the relationships between the
predictors and the dependent variables in group 2 is
presented in Table 39. This table indicates that most of the
correlations between the predictors and the dependent
variables are not significant. The eigenvalues and canonical
correlations on the group 2 (Table 40) showed that no
function at level alpha equal to .25 is significant before a
canonical variable is extracted. The multivariate regression
analysis in Table 40 shows that there is no significance
between the predictors and the dependent variables (Wilk's
Approx. F (12, 26.75) = .73, p < .707).
Concept teaching method
Many significant correlations between the predictors
and the dependent variables in group 3 are presented in
Table 41; e. g. the correlation between physics
misconception attitude and the misconception posttest is
124
significant (r = .45, p < .05), the correlation between the
physics concept map attitude test and the concept map
posttest is also significant (r = .32, p < .05)
The eigenvalues and canonical correlations on the group
3 (Table 42) showed that two significant canonical
correlations (Rj^ = .57, e < *001 and R2 = .47, e < *05) are
here. However, the subject/variable ratio is about 7 to 1,
only the largest canonical correlation can be used to
interpret the canonical variates (Stevens, 1986). The
standardized coefficients for the canonical variates along
with the canonical variate-variable correlations are
presented in Table 42. Examining the correlations and the
standardized coefficients in this table, the interpretation
of the canonical relationship is that students with the
misconception attitude rate high on measures of the physics
misconception posttest.
The multivariate regression analysis in Table 43
indicates that a significant relationship between the
dependent variables and the predictors exists (Wilk's
Approx. F (12, 95) = 2.19, p < .016). The univariate
analysis of the three dependent variables in Table 44
indicates that the physics misconception posttest of group 3
is significantly related to the set of predictors at the .05
level (F = 4.37, E < -005).
The multiple regression using stepwise method as the
prediction selection procedure is used to test the four
125
attitude subtests. In Table 45, the misconception attitude
and the teaching concept attitude have the highest simple
correlation with the misconception posttest (Multiple R =
.44 and .51 respectively).
Therefore, the findings in this section suggest that
the null hypothesis can be rejected. The overall
multivariate significance for the traditional teaching
method or the concept teaching method is primarily
attributable to the relationship of the misconception
posttest with the four predictors; that is, the four
attitude subtests.
Combining Table 34, 39, and 41, the number of the three
groups in significant correlation of the dependent variables
and the predictors is shown in Table 46.
126
Table 34
Correlation of the Dependent Variables and the Predictors
for the Traditional Teaching Method (Group 1)
Variables Mistest2 Conmap2 Achieve Learn Mis Teach Map
Mistest2 1.00
Conmap2 .27 1. 00
Achieve .15 .48* 1.00
Learn -.20 .18 .32 1.00
Mis .36 .54* . 60** .24 1.00
Teach -.13 .46* .44 .14 .51* 1.00
Map .43 .32 .12 .23 .11 -.23 1.00
*E < . 0 5 , * * p < 0 1
Dependent Variables:
Mistest2 - Physics misconception posttest
Conmap2 - Physics concept map posttest
Achieve - Physics achievement test
Predictors:
Learn - Learning physics concept attitude test
Mis - Misconception believing attitude test
Teach - Instructor's teaching concept attitude test
Map - concept map attitude test
127
Table 35
Canonical
*- W . * v * v * w |
Variate for the GrouD 1
Root No. Eigenvalue Pet. Cum. Pet. Canon Cor.
1 2.12 76.78 76.78 .82**
2 .56 20.27 97.06 .60
3 .08 2.94 100.00 .27
Variables
Standardized Correlation with
Coefficients Canonical Variate
Cognitive:
Physics Misconception
Posttest
61 ,67
Physics concept Map
Posttest
59 ,75
Physics Achievement
Test
24 61
Attitude:
Physics Learning Concept
Attitude Test
08
Physics Misconception
Attitude Test
,74 83
Physics Teaching Concept
Attitude Test
16 ,36
Physics Concept Map
Attitude Test
,59 58
128
Table 36
Multivariate Regression Analysis of the relation between the
Concept Map Posttest. Misconception Posttest, and
Achievement Test, and the Four Attitude Subtests for the
Traditional Teaching Method
Test name Value Approx. F Hypoth. df Error df

Wilks .19 2.34 12 32.04 . 028

Table 37
Univariate :F-Test of the Dependent Variables for the
Traditional Teachincr Method
Variable SQ. Mul. R Hypoth. MS Error MS F

Mistest2
Conmap2
Achieve
.48
.47
.42
7.64 2.40
131.84 42.52
464.92 184.50
3 .19
3 .10
2.52
.047
.051
.088
Mistest2 - Physics misconception posttest
Conmap2 - Physics concept map posttest
Achieve - Physics achievement test
129
Table 38
Multiple Regression Test on the Traditional Teaching Method
Physics concept map attitude:
Multiple R .47
R square .22
Adjusted R square .18
Standard error .17
F = 4.89 Signif. F = .041
130
Table 39
Correlation of the Dependent Variables and the Predictors
for the Example-nonexample Teaching Method (Group 2 )
Variables Mistest2 Conmap2 Achieve Learn Mis Teach Map
Mistest2 1.00
Conmap2 .45* 1. 00
Achieve .49* .13 1.00
Learn . 08 .19 -.01 1. 00
Mis .17 .16 .49* .40 1.00
Teach -.20 -.27 -.07 -.36 -.25 1. 00
Map .09 .49* -.13 .34 .09 -.25 1.00
*E < .05, **p < .01
Dependent Variables:
Mistest2 - Physics misconception posttest
Conmap2 - Physics concept map posttest
Achieve - Physics achievement test
Predictors:
Learn - Learning physics concept attitude test
Mis - Misconception believing attitude test
Teach - Instructor's teaching concept attitude test
Map - concept map attitude test
131
Table 40
Canonical Correlation and Multivariate Regression Analysis
of the Relation between the Concept Mao Posttest.
Misconception Posttest, and Achievement Test, and the Four
Attitude Subtests for the Example-nonexample Teaching Method
(Group 2)
Root No. Eigenvalue Pet. Cum. Pet. Canon Cor.
1 .54 58.72 58.72 .59
2 .36 39.13 97.86 .51
3 .02 2.14 100.00 .14
Test name Value Approx. F Hypoth. df Error df
E
Wilks .47 .73 12 26.75 707
132
Table 41
Correlation of the Dependent Variables and the Predictors
for the Concept Teaching Method (Group 3)
Variables Mistest2 Conmap2 Achieve Learn Mis Teach Map
Mistest2 1.00
Conmap2 .22 1. 00
Achieve .22 -.01 1. 00
Learn .38* -.02 . 25 1.00
Mis .48** -.05 .25 .63** 1.00
Teach -.31 -.05 -.14 -.23 -.22 1.00
Map .04 . 32* -.28 .03 -.22 .27 1.00
I
T
)
0

V 0
1

*
** < .01
Dependent Variables:
Mistest2 - Physics misconception posttest
Conmap2 - Physics concept map posttest
Achieve - Physics achievement test
Predictors:
Learn - Learning physics concept attitude test
Mis - Misconception believing attitude test
Teach - Instructor's teaching concept attitude test
Map - concept map attitude test
133
Table 42
Canonical
WWJ. i. WJ.MWXV*!t
Variate for the Grouo 3
Root No. Eigenvalue Pet. Cum. Pet. Canon Cor.
1 .49 63.47 63.47 .57**
2 .28 35.67 99.14 .47
3 .01 .86 100.00 .08
Variables
Standardized Correlation with
Coefficients Canonical Variate
Cognitive:
Physics Misconception
Posttest
94 93
Physics concept Map
Posttest
-.25 -.01
Physics Achievement
Test
26 41
Attitude:
Physics Learning Concept
Attitude Test
19 ,74
Physics Misconception
Attitude Test
,73 92
Physics Teaching Concept
Attitude Test
-.35 -.55
Physics Concept Map
Attitude Test
04 -.20
134
Table 43
Multivariate Regression Analysis of the Relation between the
Concept Mao Posttest. Misconception Posttest . and
Achievement Test, and the Four Attitude Subtests for the
Concent Teachincr Method
Test name Value Approx. F Hypoth. df Error df
E
Wilks .52 2.19 12 95.54 .016
Table 44
Univariate F-Test of the Dependent Variables for the Concept
Teachincr Method
Variable SQ. Mul. R Hypoth. MS Error MS F
E
Mistest2 .31 12.12 3.24
Conmap2 .13 157.58 114.50
Achieve .15 254.73 157.20
4.37
1.38
1.62
.005
.260
.189
Mistest2 - Physics misconception posttest
Conmap2 - Physics concept map posttest
Achieve - Physics achievement test
135
Table 45
Multiple Regression Test on the Concept Teaching Method
Physics misconception attitude:
Multiple R .44
R square . 2 0
Adjusted R square . 18
Standard error . 14
F = 9.60 signif. F
Physics teaching concept attitude:
Multiple R .51
R square . 2 6
Adjusted R square .22
Standard error . 14
F = 6.60 Signif. F
= .004
= .004
136
Table 46
The Overall Significant Correlation of the Dependent
Variables and the Predictors Relating Group 1. 2. and 3
Variables Mistest2 Conmap2 Achieve Learn Mis Teach Map
Mistest2
Conmap2 2
Achieve 2 1
Learn 3
Mis

1 @),2 (3)
Teach 1 1 1
Map 2,3
Note:
1: Group 1
2: Group 2
3: Group 3
Q: E < *01
Dependent Variables:
Mistest2 - Physics misconception posttest
Conmap2 - Physics concept map posttest
Achieve - Physics achievement test
Predictors:
Learn - Learning physics concept attitude test
Mis - Misconception believing attitude test
Teach - Instructor's teaching concept attitude
test
Map - concept map attitude test
137
Summary
The significant results in this chapter are summarily
presented in the following Table 47.
Table 47
Summary of the Significant Results in This Study
Name Group
E
Bryant-Paulson Comparisons:
the Physics concept Map Posttest 3 > 1
3 > 2
<.05
<05
Bryant-Paulson Comparisons:
Proposition 3 > 2 <.05
Bryant-Paulson Comparisons:
Hierarchy 3 > 1
3 > 2 A
A

o
o
<
J
1

U
1
MANOVA Repeated measures:
Group X Physics concept Map Pre-Post-Test 3 > 1
3 > 2
.000
Canonical Analysis:
the Physics Concept Map Posttest, 1 <.001
the Physics Misconception Posttest, 3 <.001
the Physics Achievement Test.
the Physics Learning concept Attitude Test
the Physics Misconception Attitude Test
the Physics Teaching Concept Attitude Test
the Physics Concept Map Attitude Test
(Continue)
138
Table 47 (Continue)
Multivariate Regression Analysis:
the Physics Concept Map Posttest, 1 .028
the Physics Misconception Posttest, 3 .021
the Physics Achievement Test.
the Physics Learning concept Attitude Test
the Physics Misconception Attitude Test
the Physics Teaching Concept Attitude Test
the Physics Concept Map Attitude Test
Univariate F-Test within cells regression:
the Physics Misconception Posttest 1 .047
3 .005
Multiple Regression Test:
the Physics concept Map Attitude Test 1 .041
the Physics Misconception Attitude Test 3 .004
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section presents a summary of the findings for the
four research hypotheses, discussion, summary and
interpretation, specific recommendations, and future
research based upon the results of this study.
Summary of Findings
Cognitive Learning Effect
The first hypothesis, which states that there is no
significant relationship among the three groups of non
science students on measures of their learning physics
concepts, their physics misconceptions, and their physics
achievement after three teaching methods being implemented,
was rejected.
After the three physics teaching methods: (1)
traditional teaching method, (2) example-nonexample teaching
method, and (3) concept teaching method, were implemented,
the concept teaching method on concept map construction was
more effective than the other two teaching methods on
concept mapping scores. According to the results of the
discriminant analysis, a high discriminant function score
would be obtained by a student who has a high score on the
139
concept map test and secondarily in the achievement test;
however, the misconception test is not positively weighted.
Furthermore, the concept teaching method is more effective
than the example-nonexample teaching method on the
Proposition subscale of the concept map test and the concept
teaching method is more effective than the other two
teaching methods on the Hierarchy subscale of the concept
map test. In the overall discriminant analysis of the
concept map test, the Hierarchy subscale of the concept map
test is the most important factor concerning the students'
concept map test. The Proposition subscale and the Example
subscale of the concept map test are the next important
factors. However, the Cross-Link of the concept map test is
not weighted as an important factor in the concept map test
on the three teaching methods.
Cognitive Teaching Effect
The second hypothesis, which states that there is no
significant differential gain for different teaching method
being implemented by three groups of non-science students on
measures of their learning physics concepts and their
physics misconceptions, was rejected. After the three
teaching methods were implemented, the concept teaching
method more effectively improved students' cognitive
structure in physics learning from the scores of their
concept map test than the other two teaching methods;
141
however, the effect of improving students' misconception is
the same for the three teaching methods, although the
students using the concept teaching method have a higher
nonsignificant mean score on the physic misconception test
than the other two teaching methods.
Learning Phvsics Attitude Effect
The third hypothesis, which states that there is no
significant relationships among three groups of non-science
students on measures of their physics learning concept
attitude, physics misconception attitude, physics teaching
concept attitude, and physics concept map attitude after
three teaching methods being implemented, was not rejected.
That is, the three teaching methods do not differ overall on
the four attitude subtests.
Multivariate Regression Effect
The fourth hypothesis, which states that there is no
significant set of four variables, the physics learning
concept attitude test, the physics misconception attitude
test, the physics teaching concept attitude test, and the
physics concept map attitude test, within each of the three
groups of non-science students for predicting the results of
the physics misconception test, the physics concept map
test, and the physics achievement test, was rejected.
By using canonical correlation analysis, students in
group 1, using the traditional teaching method, with the
142
physics misconception attitude and the physics concept map
attitude rate high on measures of the physics misconception
posttest and the physics concept map posttest. In group 3,
using the concept teaching method, students with the
misconception attitude rate high on measures of the physics
misconception posttest. No significant canonical correlation
is existed in group 2, using the example-nonexample teaching
method.
As for using multivariate regression analysis, in group
1, using the traditional teaching method, the physics
misconception posttest is significantly predicted by the
concept map attitude test. In group 3, using the concept
teaching method, the physics misconception posttest is
significantly predicted by the misconception attitude test
and the teaching concept attitude test. However, in group 2,
using the example-nonexample teaching method, none of the
dependent variables is predicated by any of the four
attitude subtests.
Discussion
Learning Effect among Three Teaching Methods
The most important idea in Ausubel's theory is
meaningful learning. Meaningful learning occurs as new
information is linked by the learner to his existing
concepts (Ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian, 1978). Acquiring
143
meaningful concept learning is central to the development of
an understanding of the physics world.
Novak (1976, 1979, 1980, 1981) introduces the idea of
concept mapping in classroom teaching. With this method
students can see that any concept they know can be
meaningfully related to other concepts through a concept
map. The concept map is a good tool for demonstrating how
Ausubel's theories such as subsumption, superordinate
learning, progressive differentiation, and integrative
reconciliation work.
Tennyson and Cocchiarella (1986) updated the Merrill
and Tennyson (1977) model, used Anderson's (1982) cognitive
skill theory, and combined other research studies to develop
the concept teaching model. This model shows the basic
instructional design variables associated with their
respective cognitive learning processes.
Berlin and White's instructional model (1987) organizes
teaching materials and instructional activities as two
dimensions: Representational Level and Movement. This model
offers a sequence of learning activities including teacher
demonstration and encourages teachers to use teaching
materials in appropriate classroom activities.
Combining these research models, the concept teaching
method used in this study can improve students' cognitive
structure from the results of their concept map test better
than the traditional teaching method and example-nonexample
144
teaching method. The concept map posttest of group 3 using
the concept teaching method indicates more improvement than
the other two teaching methods. In addition, the means of
the misconception posttest and achievement test of group 3
are higher than the means for the other two groups. It is
also significant that the concept teaching method is more
effective than the example-nonexample teaching method for
both the Proposition and Hierarchy subscales of the concept
map construction. In addition, the concept teaching method
is more effective than the traditional teaching method for
Hierarchy subscale of the concept map construction.
The results of using the concept teaching method is
related to Ausubel's concept of subsumption. That is, a new
concept often is subsumable under more general or inclusive
concepts. The higher number of levels of hierarchical
structure that students develop under the concept teaching
method indicates that they can effectively represent
hierarchies of relationships, which are what concepts and
concept maps are focused upon (Novak & Gowin, 1984).
In the concept teaching method, the students can label
more meaningful connecting lines among concepts. This
indicates that the students are more familiar with the
learning material the concept map is concerned with. In
addition, to construct a hierarchical concept map, the
student should think through what he perceives to be the
145
most inclusive, less inclusive, and least inclusive concepts
in a body of subject matter. This requires active cognitive
thinking (Novak & Gowin, 1984). The concept teaching method
in this study helps students acquire concepts about the
entire unit from teacher-made concept maps and cognitive
bridges before concepts from the unit are introduced. Then
the superordinate, subordinate, and coordinate concepts will
be acquired from the teaching sequence in this method. Thus
the concept teaching method leads students to construct a
better organized, hierarchically structured concept map
about motion than the other two teaching methods. This
supports Tennyson and Cocchiarella's (1986) assertion that
improving the student's acquisition of concepts through
instructional strategy can effectively aid in the formation
of conceptual knowledge and the development of the
corresponding procedural knowledge.
Next, in general, the concept teaching method enables
students to have more effective hierarchical concept
structures which indicate that those students' concept maps
are not more general or specific than concept maps done
under the other two teaching methods. Hence, the student who
constructs a good concept map can subsume new information
under more general, more inclusive concepts and shows the
set of relationships between a concept and other concepts
subordinate to it. Several students' concept maps that
represent good hierarchical structure, overly general,
146
overly specific structure are shown in Appendix G.
The MANCOVA of physics misconception posttests and the
physics achievement test among three groups are not
significant in this study. This means that the three
teaching methods did not significantly correct students'
misconceptions and improve their achievement although the
scores on the misconception posttest and the achievement
test in the concept teaching method tend to be higher than
the scores in the other two teaching methods.
Teaching Effect among Three Teaching Methods
For the second hypothesis, there is a significant
interaction between pretests and posttests for the three
teaching methods on measures of the physics misconception
test and physics concept map test combined. The interaction
on the three teaching methods and the concept map pretest
and posttest shows the main significant effect. Moreover,
there was a significant improvement for group 3, using the
concept teaching method, on the concept map posttest.
According to the teaching sequence of the concept
teaching method, a teacher-made concept map is presented to
students before the concepts are introduced. The concept map
has been produced as a natural part of the planning stage so
students can understand teacher's conceptual model of the
teaching material.
Cognitive bridge in the concept teaching method gives
147
students a best example which conjures up in students7
memory existing knowledge structures and enriches students'
imagery.
In addition, after examples are taught the concept
teaching method introduces nonexamples and interrogatory
examples. Teaching examples and nonexamples can encourage
students to correctly classify new examples and nonexamples
of the concept, so students will not make the errors of
overgeneralization, undergeneralization, and misconception
(Woolley & Tennyson, 1972). Interrogatory examples help
students to form conceptual knowledge and direct students to
use knowledge coded in memory and thus elaborate encoded
conceptual knowledge for the developing skill of concept
classification (Tennyson & Cocchiarella, 1986).
Attitude Effect among the Three Teaching Methods
From the results of testing the third hypothesis, there
is no significant relationship among the three groups on
measures of attitudes toward learning physics, physics
misconception, instructor's teaching physics, and concept
map construction after three teaching methods being
implemented.
According to the mean scores for the three groups on
the four attitude tests, the students show positive
agreement with the statements made in the misconception
attitude test. The students show somewhat positive agreement
148
with the statements make in the physics learning concept
attitude test and physics teaching concept attitude test.
However, the students are negative in their attitude toward
concept mapping.
Predicting Effect on Physics Misconception. Concept Map, and
Physics Achievement
Of the three criteria, physics misconception posttest,
physics concept map posttest, and physics achievement test,
predicted by physics learning concept attitude, physics
misconception attitude, physics teaching concept attitude,
and physics concept map attitude, only the criterion physics
misconception posttest was significantly predicted by the
physics concept map attitude for the traditional teaching
method.
In group 1, using the traditional teaching method,
students' misconception posttests can be mainly predicted by
their physics concept map attitude. Because concept maps are
an overt representation of the concepts a student holds,
they give students a chance to recognize concept linkages
required for new learning. Misconceptions thus are usually
signaled either by a linkage between two concepts that leads
to a clearly false proposition or by a linkage that misses
the key idea relating two or more concepts (Novak & Gowin,
1984) .
Inspection of the results showed that none of the three
149
criteria variables are significantly predicted by any of the
four predictor variables for the group 2 using the example-
nonexample teaching method.
In group 3, using the concept teaching method,
students' misconceptions were primarily predicted by their
misconception attitudes and teaching concept attitudes;
however, in canonical analysis students with the only
misconception attitude rate high on measures of their
physics misconception test. Research on misconception about
motion has two general conclusions: (1) misconceptions about
motion are generally incompatible with understanding
Newtonian theory; and (2) misconceptions are very stable,
and conventional physics instruction does little to change
them. If a student's initial incorrect knowledge could
not be 'obliterated' through teaching and learning, it has a
serious effect on his performance in physics (Halloun &
Hestenes, 1985). Thus, in the process of using the concept
teaching method, students' physics misconception test is
directly predicted by their beliefs about motion phenomena.
Summary and Interpretation
The concept teaching method in this study helps
students obtain higher scores on the combined physics
misconception test, the physics concept map test, and the
physics achievement test. However, only on the physics
150
concept map test is there a significant difference between
the concept teaching method and the other two teaching
methods. The concept teaching method offers more classroom
teaching procedures: concept map presentation, cognitive
bridge, nonexamples, and interrogatory examples and
attribute feedback if needed.
Concept map presentation helps in converting sequential
source materials into a coherent representation of the
concept model for understanding of the instructional unit
and it serves as a useful guide during lecture. Thus the
concept map presentation offers a considerable teaching and
learning tool in physics instruction.
Cognitive bridge establishes the initial encoding of
motion concepts and conjures up in memory existing concept
structure. It has a similar function to Ausubel's advance
organizer to inactivate the students' existing concepts
(subsumers) and prepare to have meaningful learning.
The students who are presented with a rational set of
examples and nonexamples will correctly classify new
concepts in their learning process in order not to make the
errors of overgeneralization, undergeneralization, and
misconception.
Interrogatory examples further help students to enhance
their development of procedural knowledge and attribute
feedback elaborates to connect the learning concept with
other concepts in their cognitive structure. Therefore, the
151
concept teaching method should be worth while for use in
physics instruction.
The concept teaching method in this study helps
students construct more propositions and hierarchies in
their concept map structure than the other two teaching
methods. Concept map presentation in this teaching procedure
offers more chance to look at the teacher-made concept map.
In other words, the map gives the students more chance to
promote understanding of concepts they are learning and also
encourages them to have meaningful learning. Of course,
other procedures in this teaching method give the students
more chance to construct their concept map as described
above. However, there are no significant differences on the
cross-link and example subscales of the concept map test
among three groups. In addition, the scores of the cross
link and example subscales among the three groups are very
low. Novak (1984) explains that valid cross links between
sets of concepts can suggest learners' integrative
reconciliation of concepts and examples in the concept map
can make it evident that students know what kind of event or
object is designated by the concept label. It is thus
suggested that there is a need to improve the interrogatory
examples and attribute feedback in the concept teaching
method in order to develop students' conceptual network. On
the other hand, the concept map test is implemented in only
152
about 20 minutes. Students seem not to have enough time to
construct their concept map because they indicate from their
concept map attitude test that to select the key concepts,
to rank order the key concepts of a topic, and to look for
cross links between concepts are not easy jobs and that
concept mapping is a waste of time.
The concept teaching method is not significant for
improving students' misconceptions although the group using
this method has a higher nonsignificant mean score on the
physics misconception test than the other two groups
separately using the traditional teaching method or the
example-nonexample teaching method. Moreover, the concept
map test is not significantly correlated with the
misconception test in group 3 using the concept teaching
method. It seems that concept map has little relationship
with students' misconception.
The concept teaching method is also not significant for
improving students' physics achievement although the group
using this method has a higher nonsignificant mean score
than the other two groups. In the physics achievement test,
items 3, 4, 5, and 6 are concerned with Newton's laws and
the other items are more directly associated with linear
motion. Although Newton's laws have a close relationship
with linear motion, it does not seem to be necessary to
include them in the content of the achievement test.
In this study, the students have a negative attitude
153
toward using the concept map in their study of physics
concepts. The statistics table describing their attitude
indicates most importantly that: (1) constructing a concept
map for a topic is not an easy job; (2) they do not think
concept mapping helps them study in other classes; (3) they
do not feel confident to construct a concept map; (4) they
do not like to explain their concept maps to teachers. If a
student has a positive attitude toward constructing his
concept map, then he should understand concept mappings
embedded in a framework of propositions and thus correct his
misconceptions or improve his achievement.
Using the concept teaching method students' the
misconception test can be predicted by and is also
significantly correlated with their misconception attitude
test. In general, students have a positive attitude toward
beliefs about the phenomena in the misconception test. For
example: (1) most of them believed that on the highway if a
car behind me speeds up and passes my car, then the two cars
do not have the same speed when the cars are side by side;
(2) most of them believed that the physics concepts in the
test are very important in learning physics. However,
several items in the misconception attitude test reveal that
some students are still unable to determine which features
of a graph correspond to particular physical concepts.
It seems that some intuitive ideas are difficult to
modify. Almost all research (Trowbridge & McDermott, 1980,
1981; Clement, 1982; McCloskey, 1983; Halloun & Hestenes,
1985a, 1985b; McDermott, Rosenquist & Zee, 1987) found that
many students have striking misconceptions about motion and
these alternative misconceptions are firmly in place. Hewson
(1985) used a microcomputer program, which was designed to
diagnose students who use a position criterion for judging
when two objects are moving with the same velocity, to
change students' judgment about relative velocity. Mokros
and Tinker (1987) used Microcomputer-Based Labs (MBL) to
effectively improve students' misconceptions about graph-as-
picture errors and slope/height confusions. McDermott (1990)
and Trowbridge (1990) have designed a software package,
Graphs and Tracks, to teach elementary concepts of graphing
position, velocity, and acceleration versus time for simple
one-dimensional motion. McDermott (1990) suggests that there
is a need to develop and test instructional strategies for
use with the computer in addressing specific difficulties.
Therefore, it seems that the computer program can be
included in the concept teaching method to teach motion
concepts.
Specific Instructional Recommendations
1. It may be appropriate to offer one or two more
lecture sessions to teach motion concepts.
Four superordinate concepts: position, velocity,
155
acceleration, and kinematic formulas, are taught in three
lecture sessions which include many tasks. Students require
more time in order to fully 'subsume' these motion concepts
within their cognitive structure. In addition, the main
reasons why we require more time to teach the motion
concepts are that these concepts comprise a major part of
mechanics in introductory physics and a sound grasp of these
concepts is critical to the study of almost all of physics
(Trowbridge & McDermott, 1980).
The number of concepts taught in the three lecture
sessions is presented in Table 48. Fourteen concepts are
taught in the first lecture session, 12 concepts are taught
in the second lecture session, and 8 concepts included the
three kinematic formulas are taught in the third lecture
session. In addition, examples and/or nonexamples,
interrogatory examples, demonstrations and/or feedback, and
so on, will be offered in each lecture session. Thus the
conscientious professor may rush through them too quickly
and the students may use rote memory or just write down what
they saw and what they heard in the classroom.
2. It may be appropriate to offer more time to
introduce and use the concept map.
Because the students have not used concept maps before,
they are not inclined to use the technique of the concept
map in the classroom or in their learning process. For
156
Table 48
Concepts Tauaht in the Three Lecture Sessions
Number
Session Concepts of
Concepts
Position, Direction, Distance, Time, 14
Positive, Negative, Scalar, vector,
Reference Point, x(t), Distance
Traveled 4.x, Time Elapsed A t,
Position-Time Graph, Slope,
Average Speed.
Position, Direction, Velocity, 12
Average velocity, Time, Instantaneous
Velocity, Av, A t , A t -> 0,
Average Acceleration, Instantaneous
Acceleration, Acceleration-time
Graph.
Acceleration, Position-time Graph, 8
Velocity-time Graph, Acceleration
time Graph;
v = v o + at 2
V s v0to+ 1/2 at
vz = Vq + 2ad
Centripetal Acceleration
157
example, many students do not like to use the concept map in
the classroom teaching or as a quiz. They think that
developing a concept map requires more time and effort.
Using concept maps seems to be an added burden. Therefore,
the idea of the concept map needs to be introduced to
students. Let them understand that the concept map can
improve their meaningful learning, allow them and the
professor to exchange views on the physic concepts, and be
an effective tool for pointing out misconceptions. Also,
students can use the concept map to summarize the unit they
have learned, promote understanding in their learning
process, and organized their study for their examinations.
3. It may be appropriate to use and extend the improved
concept teaching method in physics instruction.
The concept teaching method in this study effectively
improves students' cognitive structure as a result of their
concept mapping. The main reason is that this teaching
method offers more effective teaching procedures and the
procedures help students format their conceptual knowledge
and develop their procedural knowledge. That is, this
teaching method assists students to have meaningful
learning. If teaching concepts and concept map is improved,
this teaching method should effectively correct students'
misconceptions and promote students' achievement.
4. It may be appropriate to improve the cross-link and
example subscales of concept map in the concept teaching
158
method in order to improve students' physics achievement.
Cross-links are emphasized in the concrete relationship
between sets of concepts. Novak and Gowin (1984) indicate
that valid-cross links can suggest learners' integrative
reconciliation of concepts. Cross-links are possible for
students to relate one concept in one cluster of concepts in
a hierarchy to other concept in another cluster of concepts.
Otherwise, the two clusters (set of concepts) will probably
be viewed as independent of each other. For example, the
questions 7 (d) and 7 (e) of the physics achievement test in
this study asks students to sketch a graph of distance
versus time and a graph of speed versus time based on the
assumption that the speed of an object is constant. What is
important to understand about a cross-link between the
concepts distance and speed versus time is how and why the
given cross-link is seen as an important relationship of
transferring back and forth between them. That is, students
need to integratively reconciliate the two concepts in their
physics learning process, or the two concepts will be viewed
as being totally different. This may be why some students
can not recognize that the meaning of the graph of speed
versus time is related to the meaning of the graph of
distance versus time. Therefore, a teacher and students in
the classroom could discuss ways to construct a higher order
concept map in order to relate several topics of study and
159
show the maps on a blackboard or on a transparency. These
activities then assist students progressively to
differentiate their concepts and to reorganize the knowledge
in their learning approaches.
Example subscale in a concept map is a specific event
or an object and it is a concrete and valid instance. The
example helps students gain meaningful knowledge from real
world experiences and it thus enhances a student's positive
attitude. For example, "a steady car" is a concrete example
of the concept "constant speed". Thus, on a concept map
shown in the classroom the teacher and students can try to
put example(s) under a concept, which in turn will enrich
students' understanding the concept that they are observing
from the example, nonexample, interrogatory example, and
demonstration in the concept teaching method.
By effecting these improvements in the cross-link and
example subscales of concept map in the concept teaching
method we may further improve students' scores on the
physics achievement test.
Future Research
If future research is to be implemented using the
teaching methods and test instruments in this study, some
areas of possible research can be suggested here:
1. What is the relationship between students' physics
concept mapping and their achievement after different
160
teaching methods being implemented?
2. Could the concept mapping improve students' physics
achievement after the cross-link and example subscales are
improved in the teaching procedure of the concept teaching
method in this study?
3. What is the connection between the concept mapping
and perceptions of the physical world?
4. What is the relationship between students' motion
misconceptions attitude test and their motion misconception
test, after three different teaching methods being
implemented?
5. If more time is used to teach motion concepts with
each of the different teaching methods, is there a
significant difference between effects of the physics
misconception test and the physics achievement test?
6. If more time is used to teach motion concepts, is
there a significant difference between the effects of the
physics learning concept attitude test, the physics
misconception attitude test, the physics teaching concept
attitude test, and the physics concept map test after three
different teaching methods have been implemented?
7. Could the concept teaching method be applied to
other physics modules or units in introductory college
physics on non-science students after it has been improved?
8. Could the concept teaching method be successfully
161
applied to physics instruction on science students? That is,
could the concept teaching method be successfully applied to
the 111 series physics courses or 131 series physics
courses?
9. After being improved, could the concept teaching
method be extended to be successfully applied to other
science courses?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, J, R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill.
Phvcholoaical Review. 89(4), 369-406.
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the
learning and retention of meaningful verbal material.
Journal of Educational Psychology. .51(5), 267-272.
Ausubel, D. P., & Fitzgerald, D. (1961). The role of
discriminability in meaningful verbal learning and
retention. Journal of Educational Psychology. 52.(5) , 266-
274.
Ausubel, D. P., & Fitzgerald, D. (1962). Organizer, general
background, and antecedent learning variables in sequential
verbal learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53.(6) ,
243-249.
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978).
Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View (2nd ed.). New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (1987). An instructional model
for integrating the calculator. Arithmetic Teacher. 34.(6) ,
5 2 - 5 4 .
Bolemon, J. (1985). Physics An Introduction. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bourne, L. E., & Guy, D. E. (1968a). Learning conceptual
rules: I. Some interrule transfer effects. Journal of
Experimental Psychology. 76(3), 423-429.
Bourne, L. E., & Guy, D. E. (1968b). Learning conceptual
rules. II: The role of positive and negative instances.
Journal of Experimental Psychology. 22(3), 488-494.
Bray, J. H., & Maxwell, S. E. (1985). Multivariate Analysis
of Variance. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Bryant, J. L., & Paulson, A. S. (1976). An extension of
Tukey's method of multiple comparisons to experimental
designs with random concomitant variables. Biometrika.
63(3), 631-638.
162
163
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliablititv and
Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Clement, J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory
mechanics. American Journal of Physics. 50(11), 66-71.
Cliburn, J. W. (1990). Concept maps to promote meaningful
learning. Journal of College Science Teaching. (February),
212- 217.
Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/
Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Cronbach, L. J. (1984). Essentials of Psychological Testing.
(4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Davison, M. L. (1983) . Introduction to multidimensional
scaling and its applications. Applied Psychological
Measurement. 7(4), 373-379.
Diekhoff, G. M., & Diekhoff, K. B. (1982). Cognitive maps as
a tool in communicating structural knowledge. Educational
Technology. (April), 28-30.
Downie, N. M. & Heath, R. W. (1974). Basic Statistical
Methods. (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Gagne, R. M. (1970). The Conditions of Learning (2nd ed.).
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1988).
Principles of Instructional Design (3rd ed.) New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Garckof, B. E., & Houston, J. P. (1963). Measurement of
verbal relatedness: an idiographic approach. Psychological
Review. 70(3), 277-288.
Gronlund, N. E. (1988). How to Construct Achievement Tests.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Gussarsky, E., & Gorodetsky, M. (1988). On the chemical
equilibrium concept: constrained word associations and
conception. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 25(5),
319-333.
Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge
state of college physics students. American Journal of
Phvsics. 53(11), 1043-1048.
164
Haygood, R. C., & Bourne, L. E. (1965). Attribute- and rule-
learning aspects of conceptual behavior. Psychology review.
72. 175-195.
Hecht, E. (1980). Phvsics in Perspective. Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing company.
Hewitt, P. G. (1989). Conceptual Phvsics (6th ed.).
Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Hewson, P. W. (1985). Diagnosis and remedication of an
alternative conception of velocity using a microcomputer
program. American Journal of Phvsics. 53.(7), 684-690.
Huitema, B. E. (1980). The Analysis of Covariance and
Alternatives. John Wiley & Sons, New York: Wiley-
Interscience Publication.
Jassal, R. S., & Tennyson, R. D. (1982). Application of
concept Learning Research in the Design of Instructional
Systems. International Journal of Instructional Media.
9(3), 185-205.
Johnson, P. E. (1967). some psychological aspects of
subject-matter structure. Journal of Educational
Psychology. 58(2), 75-83.
Jonassen, D. H. (1984). developing a learning strategy using
pattern notes: a new technology. Programmed Learning and
Educational Technology. 21(3), 163-175.
Jonassen, D. H. (1987). Assessing cognitive structure:
verifying a method using pattern notes. Journal of
Research and Development in Education. 20(3), 1-14.
Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by
optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis.
Psvchometrika. 9(1), 1-27.
McClelland, J. A. (1985). Misconceptions in mechanics and
how to avoid them. Phvsics Education. 20, 159-162.
McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L., & Zee, E. H. (1987).
Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics:
examples from kinematics. American Journal of Phvsics.
55(6), 503-513.
McDermott, L. C. (1990). Research and computer-based
instruction: opportunity for interaction. American Journal
of Phvsics. M(5) , 452-462.
165
Merrill M. D., & Tennyson, R. D. (1977). Teaching concepts:
An instructional design guide. Educational Technology
Publication, Englewood Cliefs, New Jersey.
Merrill, M. D., & Tennyson, R. D. (1978). Concept
classification and classification errors as a function of
relationships between examples and nonexamples. Improving
Human Performance Quarterly. 7(4), 351-364.
Mokros, J. R., & Tinker, R. T. (1987). The impact of
microcomputer-based labs on children's ability to interpret
graphs. Journal of research in Science Teaching. 24.(4) , 369-
383.
Mueller, D. J. (1986). Measuring Social Attitudes. New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Novak, J. D. (1976). Understanding the learning process and
effectiveness of teaching methods in the classroom,
laboratory, and field. Science Education. 60(4), 493-512.
Novak, J. D. (1979). Applying psychology and philosophy to
the improvement of laboratory teaching.The American
Biology Teacher. 1(8), 466-470.
Novak, J. D. (1980). Learning theory applied to the biology
classroom. The American Biology Teacher. 2(5), 280-285.
Novak, J. D. (1981). Applying learning psychology and
philosophy of science to biology teaching. The American
Biology Teacher. 3(1), 12-20.
Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B., & Johansen, G. T. (1983). The use
of concept mapping and knowledge vee mapping with junior
high school science students. Science Education. 67(5)
625-645.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn.
Cambridge University Press.
Ostdiek, V. J., & Bord, D. J. (1987). Inguirv into Phvsics.
St. Paul: West Publishing Company.
Pella, M. 0. (1966) . Concept learning in science. The
Science Teacher. 3.3(1)* 31-34.
Preece, P. F. W. (1976). Mapping cognitive structure: a
comparison of methods. Journal of Educational Psychology.
68(1), 1-8 .
166
Ridley, D. R., & Novak, J. D. (1988). Assessing student
learning in light of how students learn. Paper presented
for the AAHE Assessment Forum American Association for
Higher Education.
Rosenguist, M. L., & McDermott, L. C. (1987). A conceptual
approach to teaching kinematics. American Journal of
Phvsics. M(5) , 407-415.
Shavelson, R. J. (1974). Methods for examining
representations of a subject-matter structure in a
student's memory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
11(3), 231-249.
Shavelson, R. J. (1973). Learning from physics instruction.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 10(2), 101-111.
Shea, M. A., & Taylor, J. R. (1990). Peer perspectives I:
The teachers' story. The Phvsics Teacher. (October), 454-
456.
Shumway, R. J. (1971). Negative instances and mathematical
concept formation: a preliminary study. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education. (May), 218-227.
Shumway, R. J. (1973) . Negative instances and mathematical
concept acquisition. Theory into Practice. 12.(5), 307-315.
Shumway, R. J. (1974). Negative instances in mathematical
concept acquisition: transfer effects between the concepts
of commutativity and associativity. Journal for Research
in Mathematics. Education. (November), 197-211.
Shumway, R. J., White, A. L., Wilson, P. & Brombacher, B.
(1983). Feature frequency and negative instances in
concept learning. American Educational Research Journal.
20(3), 451-459.
Stevens, J. (1986). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the
Social Science. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
SPSS, Inc. (1990). SPSS-X User's Guide. Illinois: SPSS Inc.
SPSS, Inc. (1990). SPSS Base System User's Guide. Illinois:
SPSS Inc.
SPSS, Inc. (1990). SPSS Advanced Statistics. Illinois: SPSS
Inc.
Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Discriminant Analysis. Champaign,
Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
167
Tatsuoka, M. M. (1988). Multivariate Analysis. (2nd ed.).
New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Tennyson, R. D., Woolley, F. R., & Merrill, M. D. (1972).
Exemplar and nonexemplar variables which produce correct
concept classification behavior and specified
classification errors. Journal of Educational Psychology.
63(2), 144-152.
Tennyson, R. D. (1973). Effect of negative instances in
concept acquisition using a verbal-learning task. Journal
of Educational Psychology. 64.(2), 247-260.
Tennyson, R. D., Steve, M. W., & Boutwell, R. C. (1975).
Instance sequence and analysis of instance attribute
representation in concept acquisition. Journal of
Educational Psychology. 67.(6), 821-827.
Tennyson, R. D., & Tennyson, C. L. (1975). Rule acquisition
design strategy variables: degree of instance divergence,
sequence, and instance analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology. 62(6), 852-859.
Tennyson, R. D., & Park, 0. C. (1980). The teaching of
concepts: a review of instructional design research
literature. Review of Educational Research. 50(1), 55-
70.
Tennyson, C. L., Tennyson, R. D., & Rothen, W. (1980).
Content structure and instructional control strategies and
design variables in concept acquisition. Journal of
Educational Psychology. 72.(4) , 499-505.
Tennyson, R. D., Chao, J. N., & Youngers, J. (1981). Concept
learning effectiveness using prototype and skill development
presentation forms. Journal of Educational Psychology.
73(3), 326-334.
Tennyson, R. D., Youngers, J., & Suebsonthi, P. (1983).
Concept learning by children using instructional
presentation forms for prototype formation and
classification-skill development. Journal of Educational
Psychology. 75(2), 280-291.
Tennyson, R. D., & Cocchiarella, M. J. (1986). An
empirically based instructional design theory for
teaching concepts. Review of Educational Research.
56(1)/ 40-71.
Trowbridge, D. E., & McDermott, L. C. (1980). Investigation
168
of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one
dimension. American Journal of Phvsics. 48(12), 1020-1028.
Trowbridge, D. E., & McDermott, L. C. (1981). Investigation
of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in
one dimension. American Journal of Phvsics. 49(3), 242-
253.
Trowbridge, D. E. (1990). Applying research results to the
development of computer-assisted instruction. In E. F.
Redish & J. S. Risley (Ed.) The Conference on Computer in
Phvsics Instruction (1988). Redwood City, Ca: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company Inc.
Waern, Y. (1972). Structure in similarity matrices. Scandina
Journal Psychology. 13. 5-16.
White, A. L., Wilson, P., & Shumway, R. J. (1983). Classroom
studies using: feature identification tasks. 181-186.
White, A. L. (1987). "The use of computer technology in
curriculum and instruction in the schools" an invited
lecture on Children in the Information Age: Opportunities
for Creativity, Innovation, and New Activities" in Sofia,
Bulgaria.
Wildt, A. R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1978). Analysis of Covariance.
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Woolley, F. R., & Tennyson, R. D. (1972). Conceptual model
of classification behavior. Educational Technology.
(April), 37-39.
APPENDIX A
The Physics Instructional Reference Guide of the Concept
Teaching Method for the Motion Unit
169
Linear Motion
Direction^) (^Position
Velocity
Acceleration
C
Kinematic^X
Formulass^-^
171
Linear Motion
concern
with
Direction^) (^Position^)
is,
measured
function
<^Positiv^> CNegative^> Cj3istance> C^ T i m e ^ )
with
A reference^
Time
elapsed
Distance
traveled
A x
concerned
with
Position-time
graph
(^examples)
concerned
with
Cexample^)
172
C^^ime~^>
Linear Motion
Position Direction
function bring
about
Displacement
<^Vector~^>
Time
elapsed
^ t
Distance
traveled
A X
bring
about
Average
velocity
bring
about
Instantaneou
velocity
- > o
C
velocity-timeN
graph.--
173
Linear Motion
has
Direction Position
make
has has concern
/ with
Time Instantaneous
1 o c i:tv__-
make has has concern
with
A v 2 ^
\ bring /
\ about / has
Velocity-Time
Graph _
Average
acceleration
make
bring
about make
nstantaneous
acceleration.
produce
make
Acceleration-time
^ graph __
174
Linear Motion
has
Position Direction
make
<^^Ve loc i ty~^>
make
Acceleration
make make
make
Position-time
- graph
Velocity-time
^__graph ^
Acceleration-time
graph______
Kinematic
First
Formula
Kinematic
Second
Formula
Kinematic
Third
Formula
175
A. Concept definition:
POSITION is a distance measured from a selected
reference point and in s specific direction.
Cognitive Bridge:
Professor Ploughe is standing at the X, what is your
position in the classroom (1005)? Mark it on this figure
below:
Smith Lab 1005
X (I'm here!)
Lecture Table
West
k>uui>n
East
176
Example:
McDonald's restaurant can be a selected reference point
from which the position of any store on N. High Street can
be determined.
any
M store
<--------------------127 f e e t --------------- >
Nonexample:
McDonald's restaurant CANNOT be a selected reference
point from which the position of any customer in the store
can be determined.
177
Example:
Charley's Steakery is south of McDonald's store on N.
High Street and the distance is 1600 yards, thus the
position of Charley's Steakery is south of McDonald's 1600
yards.
M C
North <---
< 1600 yards
> South
>
Question
What is the position of the OSU main library?
Feedback
. a selected reference point
. distance
. direction
179
B. Concept definition;
Position of a moving object as a function of time is
the distance measured with respect from the selected
reference point as it varies with time may be given as a
table or graph or x(t).
Example:
A man is running toward south from McDonald's store on
the N. High Street. The position-time graph xft) can be
drawn from the data of time and position in the following:
Time (s) Distance (m)
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
position 25
(m) 20
10
15
0
5
time
(second) 0 1 2 3 4 5
180
Nonexample:
The following position versus time data and graph are
impossible because time does not run backwards or an object
cannot be in two location at the same time:
Time (s) Distance (m)
0
1
2
1
0
0
5
10
15
20
(m)
25
20
15
10
_ time
(second) 5 0 1 2 3 4
181
Example;
A man is running south from McDonald's on N. High
Street. The position-time graph xft) can be drawn from the
data of time and position as the following:
Time (s) Distance (m)
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
10
16
20
23
24
(m)
25
20
15
10
time
0 1 2 3 4 5 (second)
Nonexample;
The following position-time graph x(t) is impossible
because time does not run backwards or an object cannot be
in two location at the same time:
(m)
25
20
15
10
time
(second)
182
Question:
An object has the following position-time graph. What
is its meaning?
position
(m)
------ - time
(second)
(Answer: The object is stationary.)
Feedback
. x(t)
. position as a function of time
183
C. Concept definition:
Speed is the time rate of change of position; that is
d
v: speed
t
d: distance traveled
t: time elapsed
Average speed is the total distance traveled by an
object divided by the time the object takes to complete the
trip; that is
change in position
Average speed = -----------------------
change in time
A. X
A. t
Define: "change in position" = (final value of position)
minus (initial value of position).
Cognitive Bridge
(1)
Finding a speed involves measurements of both distance
and time (Bolemon, 1985)
(2) Hecht, E. (1980). Phvsics in Perspective. P. 40.
184
Example;
A man running by McDonald's store at 12:04:07 toward
south on N. High Street arrived at Charleys Steakery at
12:17:32. What is his average speed?
Time interval = change in time
= (12:17:32) - (12:04:07)
= 0:13:25
change in position
Average speed = ------------------------
change in time
distance
time interval
1600 yards
13 m 25 s
1600 yards
805 seconds
= 1.99 yards/second
185
Example;
The 1985 world record in the 200-meter dash was 19.72
s. What was the average speed in m/s?
200
v =
19.72
= 10.14 m/s.
1.61 Km = 1 mile
3600 s = 1 hour
Therefore, v = 10.14 m/s
Moreover,
1 foot = 0.3048 m
1 m = 3.281 feet
= 39.370 inches
10.14 m 1 3600s
= ----------- x (-------
1610 m/mile Is 1 h
= 22.7 miles/hour
= 22.7 mph
Question
A passenger jet flies from one airport to another 1,2 00
mi away in 2.5 h. Find its average speed.
Feedback
. speed
. change in position
. change in time
. average speed
. time interval
. time
187
D. Definition;
The slope of a line drawn between two points on a
position-time graph is the average speed of the section.
Cognitive Bridge
rise
Slope = ------
run
rise = 5 m, run = 10 s.
position
(m)
5
10
time (s)
Example;
(In the previous example we created a position-time graph
reproduced below:)
What is the average speed between t = 1 second and t
2 seconds and between t = 3 seconds and t = 4 seconds.
position 25
(m) 20
15
10
time
(second) 0 2 4 1 3 5
average speed ( 1 - 2 ) =
1 0 - 5 (m)
2 - 1 (s)
= 5 m/s
20 - 15 (m)
average speed ( 3 - 4 ) =
4 - 3 (s)
= 5 m/s
They have the same average speed.
Nonexample
What is the average speed between t = 1 second and t = 2
seconds?
(m)
25
20
15
10
5
time
(second)
0
4 0 1 2 3 5
189
Example:
(Refer to previous graph like this.)
What is the average speed between t
2 seconds or between t = 3 seconds and t
following position-time graph?
1 second and t =
4 seconds in the
(m)
25
20
15
10
. time
(second) 0 3 4 1 2 5
16 - 10 (m)
average speed ( 1 - 2 ) = --------------
2 - 1 (s)
= 6 m/s
23 - 20 (m)
average speed ( 3 - 4 ) = ---------------
4 - 3 (s)
= 3 m/s
They do not have the same average speed.
Nonexample
(m)
25
20
15
10
time
(second)
Question:
What is the average speed between t = 1 second and t
4 seconds in the following position-time graph?
position
(m)
------ time
(second)
Feedback
. position-time graph
. slope
. average speed
191
Demonstration experiment;
1. Position vs. time
(Computer graph simulation using MAC microcomputer)
2. Two extend to velocity vs time by using examples on Textbook
pages 14 & 15.
192
Concept definition;
Displacement is a distance or change in position in a
specific direction.
Example:
In the figure on the right, one person walking starts
at position 50m and arrives at position 26m. What is the
displacement?
displacement
_ , , _ ._________________
o
Displacement = change in position
= (+26) - (+50)
= 2 6 - 5 0
= -30 m (Minus sign means left)
Example:
In the figure on the previous one, if one person
walking starts at position -40m and arrives at position -
10m, what is the displacement?
Displacement = change in position
= (-10) - (-40)
= -10 + 40
= 30 m (Plus sign means right)
193
Concept definition:
Vector is a physical quantity which has magnitude
(scalar) and one direction.
. - - - . _ +
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-----.---- > +5
^ +2
> +2
-3 <---- -------------
-2 < -
Nonexample:
It's not a vector.
194
Question
What is the vector from my position to your position?
Feedback
. magnitude
. scalar
. direction
. vector
195
Definition
Scalar:
A physical quantity which has magnitude (size + units)
only. For example, time, length, speed, mass, and distance.
Vector:
A physical quantity which has magnitude and direction.
For example, displacement and velocity.
Therefore,
Vector Scalar
displacement distance + direction
velocity speed + direction
Question
1. The length of the classroom is a scalar or a vector?
2. Position is a scalar or a vector?
Feedback
. scalar
. vector
197
Concept definition;
Velocity is the speed of a moving object together with
its direction of motion.
Example:
A person is moving from McDonald toward Charles with a
speed 2 ft/second. Thus the velocity is 2 ft/second (south).
198
Concept definition;
Average velocity v is defined as the displacement A. x
of a particle that occurs during a time interval A t.
Example:
What is the average velocity of an object in the figure
on the right? x
v = -------
t
= slope
10 m
2 s
= 5 m/s (north)
P
m)
15 x=10m
10
t=2s
0 1 2 3 5 4
time (second)
Nonexample;
What is the average velocity of an object between 1
second and 2 seconds in the figure on the right?
v =
1 0 - 5
2 - 1
(?)
10 - 15
v = ----- (?)
2 - 1
They are impossible!
p 25
(m) 20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
time (second)
199
Example;
What is the average velocity of an object between 2
seconds and 5 seconds in the figure on the right?
V =
A t
= slope
24 - 15
5 - 2
= 3 m/s (north)
p 25.
(m) 20
15
t=3s
10
3 0 1 2 4 5
time (second)
Nonexample:
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
time (second)
Question
A passenger jet flies from Columbus to Chicago 350
away in 40 minutes. Find its average velocity.
Feedback
. displacement x
. time interval t
. average velocity
201
Concept definition:
Instantaneous velocity v is the value that the average
velocity v approaches as the time interval A. t approaching
zero as a limit.
Cognitive Bridge
(1) An accelerating fan cart draws a paper tape through a
timer that makes a dot on the tap. As the professor
shows the dot spacing for shorter and shorter time
intervals, students can perceive that the separation
between dots becomes more and more uniform.
1/60 second
(2) Hecht, E. (1980). Physics in Perspective. P. 41.
202
Example:
What is the instantaneous velocity at time = 3 seconds in
the figure on the right?
A x
v =
A t
= slope
20 - 10
5 - 1
= 2.5 m/s (north)
p 25
(m) 20
15
10
5 0 1 2 3 4
Nonexample:
What is the instantaneous velocity at time = 2 seconds in
the following figure?
TCp
25
(m) 20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
time (second)
This is impossible because an object concurrently has 2
different instantaneous velocity at t = 2 seconds.
203
Example:
What is velocity-time graph derived from position-time
graph in the following figure?
x
(m)
15
10
time
4 5 (second)
Correct answer:
v 6.
(m/s) 3
time
3 4 5 (second)
Incorrect answer:
6
(m/s) 3
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 (second)
204
Example:
What is velocity-time graph derived from position-time
graph in the following figure?
x
(m)
15
10
5
0 time
5 (second)
Correct answer:
v 6
(m/s) 3
time
3 4 5 (second)
Incorrect answer:
v 6
(m/s) 3 -----------
0 ---- .--------- .--. time
0 1 2 3 4 5 (second)
205
Question
What is velocity-time graph derived from position-time
graph in the following figure?
x
(m)
15
10
* time
5 (second) 1 3 0 2 4
Feedback
. position-time graph
. velocity-time graph
Demonstration
1. Car/Ball on Track.
206
Concept definition:
Acceleration is the rate of change of the velocity from
a moving object.
Average acceleration a is defined as the change in
velocity ^ v of a particle that occurs during a time
interval ^ t .
v
a -----
^ t
change in velocity
change in time
Cognitive Bridge
Hecht, E. (1980). Physics in Perspective. P. 43, and P. 44.
207
Example:
A car accelerates from 2 0 m/s E (East) to 25 m/s E in 4
seconds as it passes a truck headed E (see figure below).
What is its average acceleration?
20 m/s
West East
25 m/s
Jj
a =
change in velocity
change in time
25 m/s E - 20 m/s E
4 s
5 m/s
4 s
1.25 m/s2 East.
This means that the car's velocity increases 1.25 m/s E
during each second.
208
Example;
After a race, a runner may take 5 seconds to come to a
stop from a speed of 9 m/s SW (Southwest). What is the
average acceleration?
change in velocity
a = -------------------- -
change in time
0 - 9 m/s
5 s
= - 1.8 m/s2 SW
or = 1.8 m/s2 NE.
Question
A baseball thrown by a pitcher reaches a speed of
m/s in 0.15 s. What is the average acceleration of the
baseball?
Feedback
. change of the velocity v
. average acceleration a
Concept definition:
Instantaneous acceleration a is the value that the
average acceleration a approaches as the time interval
approaching zero as a limit.
211
Example:
What is the instantaneous acceleration at time = 3
seconds in the figure on the right?
^ v
t
slope
20 - 10
5 - 1
2.5 m/s2 N.
v 25
(m/s) 20
15
10
5
0
0 1 3 4 5 2
Nonexample:
What is the instantaneous acceleration at time = 2
seconds in the following figure?
v 25
(m/s) 20
15
10
0 1 2 3 4 5
time (second)
This is impossible because an object concurrently has 2
different instantaneous accelerations at t = 2 seconds.
212
Example;
What is acceleration-time graph derived from velocity
time graph in the following figure?
(m/s)
15
10
time
5 (second)
Correct answer:
a 6.
(m/s ) 3
time
5 (second)
Incorrect answer:
(m/s )
6
0 time
3 4 5 (second)
213
Example:
What is acceleration-time graph derived from velocity
time graph in the following figure?
v
(m/s)
15
10
5
0 time
5 (second)
Correct answer:
a 6[
(m/s ) 3
- time
0 1 2 3 4 5 (second)
Incorrect answer:
(m/s )
6
0 time
0 1 2 3 4 5 (second)
214
Question
What is acceleration-time graph derived from velocity
time graph in the following figure?
(m/s)
15
10
0 1 2 3 4 5
time
(second)
Feedback
. velocity-time graph
. acceleration-time graph
215
Transforming graphs among position-time, velocity-time,
and acceleration-time:
Example:
t
216
Example:
x
V
I
(Suppose x c< t )
t
t
t
217
Question
Draw the position-time graph and acceleration-time
graph from the following known velocity-time graph:
v .
t
First kinematic formula:
If a motion is constant acceleration in a straight
line; that is, a = constant,
^ v
and a =----------
^ t
v - v
= -------(vQ: initial velocity)
then v = v t + a a t
or simply v = v, + at (Suppose t means ^ t)
Example;
A train, initially stationary, has a constant
acceleration of 0.5 m/s
(a) What is its speed after 15 s?
(b) What would be the total time it would take to reach
a speed of 25 m/s?
219
Second kinematic formula;
If a motion is constant acceleration in a straight
line, that is, a = constant,
distance
and average velocity v =
and the fact
then
time elapsed
a d
__ v + v
a
V ---------- -
^ d v + v,
0
A t
(v4 + a^t) + v0
2
2 A d = (v, + a a t) A t + v6 a t
Thus, 2 A d = 2vAt + a(At)**
d = V o 4 t + t a ( a t)
Simply, d = v t + x at
Example;
A rock is dropped off the side of a bridge and hits the
water below 2 s later. What is the height of the bridge
above the water?
Third kinematic formula:
From the first formula v = v 0 + at
then t = (v - vp ) / a
replace t in the second formula with the above t value,
d = vs t + ~ at1
v - v 1 v - v
= va ( ------- ) + a (---------- )
a 2 a
v v - v* 1 v x - 2v v + v*
+ a
a 2 a*
v#v v* v 4, v v. v*
_ + + ---
a 2a a 2a
v.
2a 2a
that is, 2ad = - v* + v'
o
then v*1 = vt + 2ad
APPENDIX B
Physics Concept Map Test
221
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES IN PHYSICS LEARNING
One way of helping persons, such as yourself, understand
physics is to create a diagram showing the interrelationships
which exist between various parts of the topic under study. You
will learn concepts which often conflict with your "common sense
ideas and make you confused. The generation of a map of the
relationships helps to organize the material in your mind and to
overcome some preconceived notions. Such a diagram or map is
called a Concept Map.
Constructing a concept map can show what you already know
and organize what you are learning. Studies have shown it to be
very powerful method and should help you in your study of
physics.
A concept map is easily constructed based on what you know
and then modified and extended as you learn more. The method of
constructing a concept map is the following:
223
1. Concept is the word used to mean some kind of object.
event or idea (e. g. dog, chair, and ice are objects; raining,
thinking, and birthday party are events; energy, momentum, charge,
gravity, love, and truth are ideas).
2. Linking words are used to link concept words (e.g. is,
are, when, with, etc.).
3. Select and write down key concepts
that are necessary for understanding the
meaning of a science topic (e. g. under
the topic of HATER, one might write down
the key concepts of river, ice, solid,
gas, vapor, steam, liquid) (see the
example at the right).
kY i/e f t
,'ce
/
1/A f > O Y
t 9/
4. List the key concepts from 3
above and put the most inclusive concepts
at the head of a list of rank-ordered
concepts. Then list the next most general,
most inclusive concepts, etc. There
will not always be agreement on the
ordering (e. g. I think that solid,
liquid, gas, vapor, river, ice,
steam, Ohio River are rank-ordered
concepts of the topic HATER) (see
the example at the right).
SO id
t i'
r s
Va.poy'
r> i/< sf
ic<3.
OU',0 Htvey
224
5. Begin constructing a
concept map by using the rank-
ordered concepts from 4 and
choosing good linking words
(see the example at the right).
6. Look for cross links
between concepts in one section
of the map and concepts in
another part of the same
map (e. g. "solid" can be
linked with "liquid" by
using the linking words
"can be melt to") (see
the example at the right).
In the following pages, we would like to know what you know
about motion in a straight line. Please write down what you
think are the key concepts and rank-order these concepts in the
space indicated. From this list construct a concept map on the
following page. Suggested concepts are in the box at the left
of the next page. You may add or delete concepts as you wish.
225
Name: ____________________________ Major: Age:____
Circle one response each:
Sex: male/female
Quarter at OSU: lst/2nd/3rd/4th/5th/6th/7th/8th/9th/10th/llth/12th/more
High school physics? ves/no High school chemistry? ves/no
AP physics? ves/no AP chemistry? ves/no
Topic : motion in a straight line
Key concepts Rank-ordered concepts
motion,
speed,
rate,
movement,
change,
distance,
time,
relative,
reference point.
instantaneous speed,
average speed,
speedometer,
constant,
direction,
velocity,
acceleration,
vector,
magnitude,
scalar,
displacement,
226
Name:
'lease construct your concept map by using the previous rank
motion
APPENDIX C
Physics Misconception Test
226
227
Physics 101 January 11, 1991
Before you study motion in chapter 1, we would like to
understand what you know about motion. This test will WOT affect
your grade. Fill out your name and SS# and record your answers on
the answer form provided.
(1-2) In the figure on the right, ball A travels with uniform
motion from left to right while ball B travels in the same
' direction. Ball B starts with an initial velocity greater than
that of ball A. As ball B travels
up a gentle incline, it slows
down and eventually comes to rest.
Ball A m m_____ ___ L
Ball B first passes A at position x, 1 2 3 4 5
x y
but later ball A passes ball B at
position mark y. (Number 1, 2, 3, Ball B .
1 2 3 4 5
4, and 5 in the figure mean that
the time is at 1st second, 2nd second,
etc.)
(1) At position x . ball A and ball B are side by side, thus
(A) ball A has greater speed than ball B.
(B) ball B has greater speed than ball A.
(C) they have the same speed.
(D) they cannot be determined.
(2) At position v . ball A and ball B are side by side, thus
(A) ball A has greater speed than ball B.
(B) ball B has greater speed than ball A.
(C) they have the same speed.
(D) they cannot be determined.
1
228
(3) In the figure on the right, ball B has the sane motion as
described in (1) above. It starts with some high initial
velocity, slows down, and comes to rest. Another ball, ball C,
starts from rest at a point ahead of ball B. It accelerates
uniformly down a gentle incline. Ball B never overtakes ball C.
(Number 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the figure mean that the time is at
1st second, 2nd second, etc.).
Do they have the same speed?
(A) Never.
(B) Once.
(C) Twice.
(D) Many times or all the time. l
(4) The figure on the right is a graph of position versus time
for an object. What is the meaning of the graph?
Ball C
Ball B
(A) The object is running from
the left to the right.
(B) The object is running from
the right to the left.
(C) The object is at any position
on the graph.
x
On)
20
10
0 t
(D) The object is motionless. 0 5 10 15 20 (s)
(5) On a straight highway, car A and car B start at the same
position and in the same direction. The figure on the right is a
graph of the speed of the two cars. At t = 4 seconds, they have
the same speed. Do they have the same position at t = 4 seconds?
(A) Yes, at d = 10 m.
(B) Yes, at d = 20 m.
(C) Yes, at d 3 40 m.
(D) No.
v 15
(m/s) 10
8 (second) 6 0 4 2
2
229
(6) Two balls, A and B, move at constant speeds on separate
tracks. Positions occupies by the two balls at the same time are
indicated in the figure at the right by identical numbers. The
arrow indicates the direction of motion. Starting points are not
shown. Do the two balls ever have the same speed?
(A) Yes, at instant "2".
A ___ a____ a____ a_____---- *--
(B) Yes, at instant "5". 1 2 3 4 5
(C) Yes, at instant "6".
(D) No.
B
position
(cm) 100
90
(7-8) The figure on the right shows a position versus time graph
for the motions of two objects A and B that are moving along the
same meter stick.
(7) At the instant t = 2 seconds,
(A) A has greater speed than B.
(B) B has greater speed than A.
(C) They have the same speed.
(D) The speeds of A and B cannot
be compared. 0
(8) Do objects A and B ever have the same speed?
(A) They have the same speed at t = 2 second.
(B) They have the same speed at t = 4 second.
(C) They have the same speed at t = 6 second.
(D) They never have the same speed.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
time (sec)
3
230
(9-11) The figure on the right is a position versus time graph.
(9) At which point is the speed slowest?
(A) A.
(B) B.
(C) C.
<D) Cannot be determined.
(10) At which point is the object
(A) A.
(B) B.
(C) C.
(D)
Cannot be determined.
(11) At which point is the object
(A) A.
(B) B.
(C) C.
(D) Cannot be determined.
4
APPENDIX D
Physics Achievement Test
231
232
232
Name ______________________
SS # ______________________
PHYSICS 101
INSTRUCTIONS: Respond to each of the following questions or
problems to the best of your ability.. Your instructor is not a
mind reader material may count against you and will not improve
your score if it does not pertain to the question. Mathematical
problems must contain enough information to convince the grader,
when he grades your paper, that you know how to work the problem
and could work similar ones. Unsubstantiated numerical responses
will be given the score or zero! If you have questions during the
exam, ask! The maximum score on this exam is 100 points.
USEFUL INFORMATION:
Acceleration of gravity on earth = g = 9.8 m/s2
Radius of ths Earth = 6.37x10 m
Mass of the earth = 5.98xl024 kg
Acceleration of gravity on the moon = 1.67 m/s2
Radius of the moon = 1.74x10 m
Mass of the moon = 7.34xl022 kg
Period of the moon = 27.32 days = 2.36x10 s
Earth - moon distance = 3.84x10 m
1 lb = 4.45 N
1 mph = 0.453 m/s = 1.47 ft/s
1 ft = 0.3048 m
1 m = 3.281 ft
G = 6.67x10 N.nr/kg2
1 mile = 5280 ft = 1.609 km
233
233
1. (12 pts) Complete the following table by writing in the common
unit in metric or English system as appropriate. (One point for
each correct response.)
metric English
mass
time
force
speed
acceleration
momentum
2. (10 pts) How far does a car traveling at 25.3 m/s travel in
5.89 s?
3. (15 pts) State Newton's three laws of motion.
4. (12 pts) An automobile manufacturer decides to build a car
that can accelerate uniformly from 3.02 m/s to 29.3 m/s in a time
of 7.04 s. The mass of the car is to be 1530 kg. What force is
required to do this?
234
234
5. (10 pts) What is the distinction between mass and weight? If
you weigh 14 7 pounds, what is your mass?
6. Imagine that you are standing inside an elevator on a standard
bathroom scale and it indicates your weight to be 137 pounds when
standing still.
6a) (6 pts) What is your mass?
6b) (6 pts) Initially the elevator starts up, for a short
period of time with an acceleration of 2.23 m/s2 . What does the
scale read?
6c) (6 pts) The elevator then continues to move upward with
a steady speed of 5.36 m/s. What does the scale read during this
time?
7. On one of your infrequent visits to the might life on High
Street you find yourself walking from Wendys to Longs Bookstore
as indicated in the diagram. Suppose it takes 2 minutes to make
the trip.
Wendys Longs
(north) (south)
< --------------------3 7 5 ---------------------- >
7a) (4 pts) What is your displacement from Wendys to Longs?
235
235
7b) (4 pts) What is your average speed?
7c) (3 pts) What is your average velocity?
7d) (6 pts) Sketch a graph of distance versus time in the
space below assuming the speed you found in 7b) above is
constant. Be sure to label and scale your graph appropriately.
7e) (6 pts) Sketch a graph of speed versus time in the space
below assuming the speed you found in 7b) above is constant. Be
sure to label and scale your graph appropriately.
APPENDIX E
Physics Learning Attitude Test
236
237
PHYSICS 101 EVALUATION FORM
The first four weeks of this quarter you studied notion. As
part of the research we are doing, we are very interested in your
reaction to the approach used in the class and laboratory.
The following is a series of statements about your learning
physics that will be of benefit to us and future physics 101
students. Please indicate the degree to which you agree with each
statement by circling one of the numbers following each statement.
Here is an example:
Key
1 =* strongly Disagree 5 * Slightly Agree
2 =* Moderately Disagree 6 =* Moderately Agree
3 = Slightly Disagree 7 - strongly Agree
4 = Undecided or No Opinion
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
I (Circle your answer) I
0. I would like to have a lot 1 2 3 4 5 6 (7)
money.
(The person who circled this example agrees strongly with the
statement, "I would like to have a lot of money.")
At first please check or mark the appropriate responses:
1. Your name: ___________________________________
2. You are: male _____ female.
3. You attend: __ 12:00 - 2:00 lab on Monday.
4:00 - 6:00 lab on Monday.
12:00 - 2:00 lab on Tuesday.
2:00 - 4:00 lab on Tuesday.
4:00 - 6:00 lab on Tuesday.
1
238
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6 .
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Key
1 = Strongly Disagree 5 = Slightly Agree
2 = Moderately Disagree 6 => Moderately Agree
3 = Slightly Disagree 7 Strongly Agree
4 = Undecided or Ho Opinion
strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
(Circle your answer)
I would enjoy learning more
about the physics taught this
quarter.
X think that physics is very useful
in my daily life.
I think that the physics topics
taught in the classroom only work
in a laboratory situation.
The physics demonstrations shown
in the classroom do not work in
the real world.
I enjoy using physics knowledge
in some fields.
The day after day search for
knowledge would become boring
for me.
I may not make great discoveries,
but working in physics would still
be interesting to me.
I would like to work in the physics
field.
Physics explanations can be made
only by physicists.
X can always get answers to my
questions by asking my physics
professors.
When something is explained well
in physics, there is no reason to
look for another explanation.
2
239
12. I would enjoy working in the
physics laboratory to solve
physics problems.
13. Physics work would be too hard for
me.
14. The value of physics lies in its
usefulness in solving practical
problems.
15. X do not want to be a physicist
because it takes too much
education.
16. Before X can do anything in
physics, I must study the writings
of the great physicists.
17. Physics laws cannot be changed.
18. Every citizen should understand
some physics because we are living
in an age of science.
(19-20) In the following figure, ball A travels with uniform motion
while ball B travels up and slows down.
Strongly strongly
Disagree Agree
1 (Circle your answer) I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. I believe that ball B has
greater speed than ball A at
position x.
20. X believe that ball A has
greater speed than ball B at
position y.
Strongly
Disagree
[ (Circle
1 2 3
Strongly
Agree
answer) [
5 6 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
your
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
3
240
In the following figure, ball C accelerates down from rest and
ball B travels up and slows down.
ball C
ball B
21. I believe that they will have
the same speed at some time.
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
I ( C i r c l e your a n s w e r ) 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Question 22 concerns the position versus time graph shown:)
P '
(m)
20
10
0
10 15
22. The figure above stands for an
object that is motionless.
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
I (Circle your answer) 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Question 23 concerns the velocity vs. time graph shown:)
8 10 4 6 t 0 2
23.
Strongly
Disagree
Car A and B start at the same l
position and direction, I
believe that car A and car B
do not have the same position
at t = 4 seconds in the above figure.
Strongly
Agree
1 (Circle your answer) [
2 3 4 5 6 7
24. On the highway, a car behind me
speeds up and passes my car. When
our cars are side by side, I
believe we have the same speed.
4
241
(Question 25 - 28 concern position vs.
P
(cm)
30
20
10
0
t 6 8 10 12 0 2 4
25. In the above figure, I believe
that object A has greater speed
than B at t = 2 seconds.
26. In the above figure, I believe
that object A and B never have
the same speed.
time graph shown:)
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
I (Circle your answer) I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
P
time
27. In the above figure, I believe
point C stands for the object
whose motion is slowest.
28. In the above figure, I believe
that no point stands for the
object speeding up.
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
I (Circle your answer) I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
I (Circle your answer) I
29. The physics concepts in questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(19) to (28) are very important
in learning physics.
30. These physics questions (19) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
to (28) are stupid.
5
242
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Key
1 = Strongly Disagree 5 3 Slightly Agree
2 3 Moderately Disagree 6 3 Moderately Agree
3 = Slightly Disagree 7 3 Strongly Agree
4 3 Undecided or No Opinion
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
(Circle your answer)
Learning how to graph motion on
position vs. time graphs is very
important in learning physics.
I need more physics explanation
about motion graphs from my
physics lectures.
I need more examples given by
the professor to learn motion.
Motion examples with 2 balls on
separate tracks would have helped
me to learn linear motion.
Motion examples that the professor
taught in classroom help me to
learn linear motion,
learning how to graph motion on
velocity vs. time graphs is very
important in learning physics.
Physics professor needs more time
to talk about linear motion in
classroom.
6
243
38. The professor's pace of teaching
motion should go slower.
39. Demonstrations on motion help me
understand motion theory.
40. Video tapes and films used to
teach motion in classroom are very
useful to me in learning physics.
41. Physics professor should allow
students to try the demonstrations
used in the classroom.
42. Physics lectures gave me a full
understanding of motion.
43. I need more mathematics skills
to learn linear motion.
44. I am not really sure of the
difference between average speed
and instantaneous speed.
45. The professor should use the
overhead projector more to teach
the motion concepts.
46. The professor should show us more
demonstrations about linear motion.
47. The problems of homework should
be discussed in classroom.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 (Circle your answer) I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7
244
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
18. I need more explanation on what
exactly the labs are about.
19. It is necessary to do some led)
examples in the classroom.
>0. The labs gave me a better
understanding of motion.
>1. I need more explanation on what
we should learn from labs.
1 (Circle your answer) 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You have ever asked to construct a Concept Map in the
)hysics classroom, please indicate the degree to which you agree
fith each statement by circling one of the numbers following each
itatement:
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
52. To select the key concepts of
a topic is an easy job.
53. To rank order the key concepts
of a topic is an easy job.
54. To look for cross links between
concepts is an easy job.
55. In general, to construct a concept
map of a topic is an easy job.
56. If the concept map I designed
is poor, I can easily reconstruct
the map.
57. I would be willing present my
constructed map to the class on
the blackboard or overhead projector.
1 (Circle your answer)
1 2 3 4 5 6
8
245
58. X would like to construct a
concept nap if I need to
understand a special topic.
59. Concept mapping is a good way
to st; dy physics.
60. I used concept mapping to help
me study in other classes.
61. Concept mapping is hard to learn.
62. Concept mapping is a waste of
time.
63. A concept map is a good picture
of how X understand a topic.
64. Concept mapping helps me organize
concepts in a way that is
meaningful to me.
65. Concept mapping is helpful
because it shows me what X don't
know.
66. Concept mapping is useful because
it tells me what X need to learn
more about.
67. X would like my professors to use
concept mapping in their presen
tation of lecture material.
68. X feel confident in my ability
to construct a concept map.
69. X would like to explain and
discuss my concept map with my
professors.
70. Concept mapping should be used
instead of physics tests to
determine what a student knows.
71. Making a concept map is fun.
72. Physics professors' concept maps
are useful to me for learning
physics.
rongly
sagree
Strongly
Agree
(Circle your answer) J
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
5 6 7
5 6 7
5 6 7
5 6 7
5 6 7
5 6 7
5 6 7
5 6 7
5 6 7
5 6 7
5 6 7
5 6 7
5 6 7
5 6 7
9
APPENDIX F
Course Copies for the Concept Teaching Method
246
247
Physics 101
POSITION is a distance measured from a selected reference
point and in s specific direction.
Example I:
Professor Ploughe is standing at the X, what is your
position in the classroom (1005)? Mark it on this figure below:
Smith Lab 1005
X (I'm here!)
Lecture Table
WeiSt
EaSt
Example II:
McDonald's restaurant can be a selected reference point from
which the position of any store on N. High Street can be determined.
Example III:
McDonald's restaurant CANNOT be a selected reference point
from which the position of any customer in the store can be
determined.
Example IV:
Charley's Steakery is south of McDonald's store on N. High
Street and the distance is 1600 yards, thus the position of
Charley's Steakery is south of McDonald's 1600 yards.
M C
North <------------------------------------------------------ > South
*----------------- 1600 yards ------------*
Question
What is the position of the OSU main library?
Position of a moving object as a function of time is the
distance measured with respect from the selected reference point
as it varies with time may be given as a table or graph or x(t).
248
Example V:
A man is running toward south from McDonald's store on the
N. High Street. The position-time graph x(t) can be drawn from
the data of time and position in the following:
Time (s) Distance (m) X 25
20
15 0 0
l 5 10
2 10 5
3 15 0
4 20 i
5 25
Example VI:
2 3 4 5
time (second)
The following position versus time data and graph are impossible
because time does not run baclcwards or an object cannot be
in two location at the same time:
position 25
(m) 20
15
10
5
0 .time
0 1 2 3 4 5 (second)
Example VII:
A man is running south from McDonald's on N. High Street.
The position-time graph xftl can be drawn from the data of
time and position as the following:
time distance X
(m)
25
20
0 0 15
1 10 10
2 16 5
3 20 0
4 23
5 24
time
(second)
Example VIII:
The following position-time graph x(t) is impossible because
time does not run backwards or an object cannot be in two
location at the same time:
Question:
An object has the following position-time graph. What is its
meaning?
x
(m)
time
(second)
Speed is the time rate of change of position; that is
d
v = -----, v: speed, d: distance traveled, t: time elapsed.
t
Average speed is the total distance traveled by an object
divided by the time the object takes to complete the trio: that is
249
change in position x
Average speed = ------------------------ =----------
change in time t
Define; "change in position" = (final value of position) minus
(initial value of position) .
Example IX:
A man running by McDonald1s store at 12:04:07 toward south
on N. High Street arrived at Charleys Steakery at 12:17:32. What
is his average speed?
Example X:
The 1985 world record in the 200-meter dash was 19.72 s.
What was the average speed in m/s?
Question:
A passenger jet flies from one airport to another 1,200 mi
away in 2.5 h. Find its average speed.
The slope of a line drawn between two points on a
position-time graph is the average speed of the section.
Example XI:
(In Example V we created a position-time graph reproduced below:)
What is the average speed between t = 1 second and t = 2
seconds and between t = 3 seconds and t = 4 seconds,
position 25
(m) 20
0 1 2 3 4 5 (second)
Exampjg x i i :
(Refer to previous graph like this.)
What is the average speed between t = 1 second and t - 2
seconds or between t = 3 seconds and t = 4 seconds in the
following position-time graph?
5 (second)
Question:
What is the average speed between t = 1 second and t = 4
seconds in the following position-time graph?
position 25
(m) 20
15 ---------------------------
10
5 ------------------------- --- time
0 1 2 3 4 5
(second)
250
Physics 101 January 14, Monday
Displacement is a distance or change in position in a
specific direction.
Example 1:
In the figure on the right, one person walking starts at
position 50m and arrives at position 26m. What is the
displacement?
displacement
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Example 2:
In the figure on the previous one, if one person walking
starts at position -40m and arrives at position -10m, what is the
displacement?
Vector is a physical quantity which has magnitude (scalar)
and one direction.
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-> +5
+2
-> +2
-3 ----------------
-2 ---------
Question
What is the vector from my position to yours?
Ssaia:
A physical quantity which has magnitude (size + units)
only. For example, time, length, speed, mass, and distance.
Vector:
A physical quantity which has magnitude and direction.
For example, displacement and velocity.
Therefore,
Vector Scalar
displacement = distance + direction
velocity = speed + direction
Velocity is the speed of a moving object together with its
direction of motion.
Example 3:
A person is moving from McDonald's toward Charley's with a
speed 2 ft/second. Thus the velocity is 2 ft/second fsouth) .
Average velocity v is defined as the displacement x of a
particle that occurs during a time interval A t .
251
Example
What is the average velocity of an object in the figure on
the right?
p 25
(m) 20
15
10
0 1 2 3 5 4
time (second)
example 5:
What is the average velocity of an object between 1
and 2 seconds in the figure on the right?
p 25
(m)
second
0 1 2 3 4 5
time (second)
SxaaBla 6:
What is the average velocity of an object between 2 seconds
and 5 seconds in the figure on the right?
p 25
(m)
time
4 5
(second)
Question
A passenger jet flies from Columbus to Chicago 350 mi away
in 40 minutes. Find its average velocity.
Instantaneous velocity v is the value that the average
velocity v approaches as the time interval t approaching zero
as a limit.
Example 7:
What is the instantaneous velocity at time = 3 seconds in the
figure on the right?
p 25
(m) 20
15
10
5 1 2 3 4 0
252
exapplq 3:
What is the instantaneous velocity at time
the following figure?
2 seconds in
p
25
(m) 20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
time (second)
Example 9:
What is velocity-time graph derived from position-time graph
in the following figure?
(m)
15
10
time
5 (second) 0 1 2 3 4
Example 10:
What is velocity-time graph derived from position-time graph
in the following figure?
x
(m)
15
10
5
0 time
(second)
Question
What is velocity-time graph derived from position-time
graph in the following figure?
253
Physics 101 January 16, 1991
Acceleration is the rate of change of the velocity from a
moving object.
Average acceleration a is defined as the change in velocity
v of a particle that occurs during a time interval t.
v change in velocity
a = ----- = ------------------------
t change in time
Example:
A car accelerates from 20 m/s E (East) to 25 m/s E in 4 seconds
as it passes a truck headed E (see figure below). What is its
average acceleration?
20 m/s
XL
West East
25 m/s
C~~n
change in velocity
a = --------------------- = 1.25 m/s2 East.
change in time
Example:
After a race, a runner may take 5 seconds to come to a stop
from a speed of 9 m/s SW (Southwest). What is the average
acceleration?
change in velocity
a = --------------------- = -1.8 m/s2 SW = 1.8m/s NE.
change in time
Question
A baseball thrown by a pitcher reaches a speed of 40 m/s in
0.15 s. What is the average acceleration of the baseball?
Instantaneous acceleration a is the value that the average
acceleration a approaches as the time interval A t approaching
zero as a limit.
Example:
What is the instantaneous acceleration at time = 3 seconds in
the figure on the right?
a = v/ t v 25
= ... (m/s) 20
= 2 . 5 m/s N. 15.
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
254
SxaiBBie;
What is the instantaneous acceleration at time = 2 seconds m
the following figure?
(m/s) 20
0 1 2 3 4 5
time (second)
Example:
What is acceleration-time graph derived from velocity-time
graph in the following figure?
v
(m/s) 15
time
0 1 2 3 4 5 (second)
Example:
What is acceleration-time graph derived from velocity-time
graph in the following figure?
v
(m/s) 15
10
5
0 . time
(second) 0 1 2 3 4 5
Question
Draw the position-time graph and acceleration-time graph
from the following known velocity-time graph:
v
t
APPENDIX G
Students' constructed Concept Maps
255
256
Please construct your concent map by using the previous rank-
ordered concepts:
C
inertiaJ j/
v J e \ o c . i t
(This concept map is overly specific)
257
Name:
Please construct your concept map by using the previous, rank-
ordered concepts:
J . L>ri/tP
/ct\n
C ho/tC)<i
/ i0 j
I Can b<2
rcfrt
Jcc/ be
o>T{fyr>ce
f C& n bd
Cor$fcA~^~
) Cq hko?
J>/ecf'i on
/ CCff' h<i1<>
I can ^ ^
CcftA
A, orffm/nt
4 i m e
I Ortd
u<?Joi.i bf
I andI and
G c c e / e r q t i o / )
I Qctn M
0<?Cf o /
can be
(Q tc, f i s ?
lcn de . r
1 n
sqier/n^ '
, n ^
/ c c t o
Qj?fci^e f*e
j d u n
; c olqr K-.<?
i - hao*r
(pla ^ ?fl\dh ^
(This concept map lacks levels of hierarchies is
overly general)
Appendix H
Frequency Distribution for Items
of the Phys ics Misconception Test and
the Physics Attitude Test
258
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Ph
It
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Ph;
It
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
12
13
14
259
Misconception Pretest
1 2 3 4
2 70 * 12 12
69
*
5 17 14
28 39 * 15 13
7 1 6 81
*
49 3 12 30
*
32 6 1 57
*
40
*
37 2 16
0 57 3 34
*
40 1 37 * 16
34 42 1 16
*
0
*
20 * 54 19
Misconception Posttest
1 2 3 4
1 70 * 20 5
62
*
1 25 8
36 44 * 8 8
2 0 1 93
*
38 1 24 33
*
37 5 0 54
*
46
*
46 0 4
0 67 1 28
*
40 1 48 * 6
36 41 3 15
*
0
*
40 * 41 12
Attitude Test
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 1 8 12 25 23 8
1 1 4 7 30 25 11
0 3 3 7 11 30 25
1 2 1 3 7 23 42
0 4 4 15 23 30 3
2 9 7 13 8 26 14
3 3 9 17 25 19 3
17 10 9 26 12 4 1
11 13 12 12 21 9 1
3 7 6 13 17 21 12
0 1 4 12 33 17 12
missing
0
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
3
3
missing
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
37
38
39
43
46
47
48
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
260
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 6 10 16 15 15 13
4 1 4 12 17 23 18
2 0 2 7 18 27 23
8 3 2 4 7 14 41
9 5 5 3 8 12 37
10 3 2 0 1 3 60
17 4 5 4 5 9 35
2 3 1 3 8 11 51
18 6 5 2 3 ' 11 - 3 4
24 7 3 6 4 9 26
8 3 3 5 4 11 45
1 1 4 7 24 25 17
3 2 2 17 14 16 25
1 2 3 10 28 19 16
3 3 15 14 25 9 10
3 6 15 16 18 13 8
2 4 9 13 21 20 10
2 1 3 7 28 29 9
3 6 7 31 16 7 9
6 12 23 19 13 3 3
1 2 0 7 22 28 19
3 4 4 5 23 21 19
3 3 10 25 23 9 6
2 5 4 8 20 13 27
3 3 4 10 20 13 26
4 2 6 9 30 11 17
11 14 11 14 23 5 1
12 20 22 10 12 2 1
13 18 17 9 14 8 0
19 16 23 9 10 2 0
15 11 22 18 11 2 0
43 15 7 11 1 2 0
18 15 13 14 13 5 1
18 11 10 20 14 5 1
40 16 8 11 1 3 0
9 15 9 14 16 9 7
9 8 11 26 10 6 9
17 7 10 16 15 10 4
17 10 10 18 18 6 0
12 8 11 15 24 7 2
13 6 11 16 24 7 2
25 3 8 16 13 11 3
27 13 9 15 6 8 1
26 9 12 24 4 3 1
45 6 8 15 5 0 0
38 8 4 23 5 1 0
19 6 5 29 11 7 2