Promoting conceptual change using collaborative groups in quantitative gateway courses

Promoting Conceptual Change Using CollaborativeGroups In Quantitative Gateway Courses

Calvin S. Kalman, Stanley Morris, Christopher Cottin and Robert Gordon

Department of PhysicsConcordia University

Montreal, P.Q., Canada H3G 1M8Email [email protected]

homepage- http://fermi.concordia.ca/Facultypages/Kalman.html

ABSTRACT

We report statistically significant results on anexperiment to promote conceptual change in the introductorycalculus-based mechanics course using an approach based oncollaborative learning. The approach is based on the notionof concept conflict developed by Hewson and Hewson (1984).Four basic concepts for which many students enter the classwith alternative conceptions were treated in Fall 1995 andFall 1996 in two sections taught by the same instructor. InFall 1995, in one section all four concepts were taughtusing the collaborative group approach and the other bystandard professor-centred methods. In Fall 1996, twosections were taught in section A using the collaborativegroup approach and in section B by standard methods. Theother two concepts were taught in section B using thecollaborative group approach and in section A by thestandard professor-centred technique. (Subject matter inthe traditional section was delivered using lectures, butdelivery of concepts in both sections was supplemented withinteractive computer programs, video disks and VCR basedmaterials.) Statistically significant greater conceptual

change occurred in the treated groups compared to thecontrol groups.

2

INTRODUCTION

The process of conceptual change requires studentsto critically examine their view of the world. Thusproducing conceptual change is part of an effort to bringthe student to the highest level of Boom's taxonomy (Bloom1956); Evaluation: the ability to judge the value ofmaterial in the light of a specific purpose using a givencriteria,. "Students are required to make value judgments,rate ideas or objects, and to accept or reject materialsbased on standards.." At this most complex level the keyskill is the ability to make judgments. ( Jacobs, & Chase,1962).

Students hold views different from or alternative tothose that they will be taught in their courses. Thisdiscovery about students has roots in Piaget's early studiesof the way children explain natural phenomena (1929).Moreover, as Pintrich, Marx and Boyle(1993) point out, themodern theory of conceptual change assumes that bringingabout changes in an individual student is analogous to thenature of change in scientific paradigms proposed byphilosophers of science, particularly Kuhn and Lakatos. Agood discussion of this idea is found in Duschl and Gitomer(1991). With these theoretical underpinnings, conceptualchange models have become the norm for research on learningin physical and social science and mathematics. Thus forexample in the in-depth analyses of student attitudes inPhysics undertaken by Halloun and Hestenes (1985), McDermott(1984), McDermott, Rosenquist, van Zee. (1987), Rosenquist,& McDermott. (1987), Gunstone (1987), and Bowden, Dall'alba,Martin, Laurillard, Marton, Masters, Ramsden, Stephanou, &Walsh (1992) it is shown that students enter introductorycourses with viewpoints differing significantly fromparadigms that will be taught them. As Posner, Strike,Hewson & Gertzog (1982) point out these students will clingto these viewpoints because these beliefs make sense inexplaining observations they have made about the physicalworld, and having taken the effort to construct their

3

private understanding, these same students will not easilyrelinquish their original viewpoints. Roth & Lucas (1997)point out that "meaningful learning in scientific classroomsappears to require that students" world views arecommensurable with that of the science they experience inand through the reenacted curriculum." What is required isfor students to understand the conceptual frameworkunderlying the course Helping students to do this involvesinitiating a growth process which can easily span the entirecourse. SOLVING PROBLEMS BY TEMPLATES VS SOLUTIONS USING PARADIGMS

Such a development of critical thinking is a process.The need for critical thinking is probably the reason whythere has been some difficulties in applying conceptualchange models to instruction with younger students.( Gunstone, Robin Gray and Searle (1992)). Up until midwaythrough high school, students can be successful at coursesby memorizing templates for every situation encountered on anexamination. Thus it is natural for students tocompartmentalize their knowledge. That is apply differenttemplates to different knowledge subsets. The key point isthat students lack the ability to apply principles garneredfrom a problem to an apparently different problem. (Gick &Holyoak (1980,83)) To meet this change, students must make ashift in their learning from template solving (what Salomonand Perkins call "Low-Road Transfer") to solution byparadigms (what Salomon and Perkins call "High-RoadTransfer") - procedures to apply principles abstracted frommany sample problems. Even if students successfully changetheir mode of solving problems, they are likely to maintaintheir method of acquiring knowledge by compartmentalizationunless they develop adequate critical thinking skills. Foran ontological basis for this difference in problem solvingand knowledge acquisition see Slotta, Chi & Joram (1995)).In a similar vein, Hammer (1995) points out that studentsnot only have personal scientific concepts, but also beliefsabout knowledge and learning or "epistemological beliefs" –beliefs about what will constitute knowledge in the course

4

and how to achieve it. Some students can dismiss theconceptual basis of the problems, because their epistemologyis formula driven and they accept calculated answers as agoal in itself.

HOW DO WE PRODUCE CONCEPTUAL CHANGE?

The sorts of insights discussed at in the previoussection are arrived at in a learning environment thatencourages an interplay of learning models. Posner, Strike,Hewson & Gertzog (1982) divide the question into two parts:

1) Under what conditions does one central concept cometo be replaced by another?

2) What are the features of a conceptual ecology whichgovern the selection of new concepts?

Their answer is basically that:1) Students must know of problems with their personal

(alternative) scientific conceptions. 2. The replacement (current textbook) concept must be

intelligible. Students must be able to understand how toapply the replacement conception to qualitative andquantitative problems presented to them.

3) The replacement concept must be plausible. It mustbe possible for the student to use the replacement conceptto solve all problems that were previously understood interms of the previously held personal concept.

4) There should be some advantages to using thereplacement concept. This could for example be widerapplicability of the new concept.

A number of other learning frameworks for conceptualchange are given in Duschl and Gitomer (1991). Sticking tothe framework of Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog (1982), wereturn to the points discussed at the end of the firstsection. Even if the last three features are satisfied,students will cling to their personal concepts if the firstdesired characteristic for conceptual change; problems with

5

the students' personal scientific conception do not occur.This is because these beliefs make sense in explainingobservations they have made about the physical world, andhaving taken the effort to construct their privateunderstanding, these same students will not easilyrelinquish their original viewpoints. Halloun and Hestenes(1985) use the picture of a balloon to describe thisfeature. The students assimilation of the replacementconcept pushes in the balloon somewhat leaving the student'spersonal concept fundamentally intact. Sufficient pressuremust be applied to actually break the balloon. Hewson andHewson (1984) describe this process as a conceptualconflict. For learning to take place, the student mustcompare the two conceptions and find them to be in conflict.It is important that in the subsequent examination of thetwo concepts that the student not compartmentalize his or herknowledge. Roth & Lucas (1997) point out that discourseanalysis indicates that " peoples attitudes – our belief –related talk depends a great deal on the context; is highlyvariable within individuals, so that one person oftenexpresses contradictory beliefs (sometimes within a matterof minutes)." Here is where the students' development ofcritical thinking is essential. Students must see that theyare being presented with two different concepts and subjectthe two concepts to critical analysis. This is the only waythat students will not simply assimilate the replacementconcept by compartmentalization of their knowledge. (Theballoon is pushed in to make room for the replacementconcept but the personal scientific concept is notdiscarded.)

OVERVIEW OF THE CONCEPTUAL CHANGE EXPERIMENT

For this experiment, we picked four typical personalscientific concepts widely held by students entering anintroductory mechanics course. These four were chosen,because in our opinion, these seem to be pivotal in ourstudents transition from their personal scientific conceptsto the Newtonian synthesis. These are:

6

1) The idea that bodies of different masses falling fromrest through a non-viscous media for a short time (sothat the resistance of the medium can be neglected) arefound at later times to move at different speeds.

2) The idea that a fast moving arrow stays in the airbecause of its great speed.

3) The idea that if a sandbag is dropped from anascending balloon, immediately upon release the initialvelocity of the sandbag is zero.

4) The idea that a ball, thrown in the air, is inequilibrium at the highest point in its motion.

Hewson and Hewson (1984) suggest that if a studentholds a personal scientific concept, he or she does sobecause the student finds it to be plausible. Thusinstruction must not only be aimed at showing that thereplacement concept is intelligible, but must also firstseek to reduce the plausibility of the personal scientificconcept. Although this may be a reasonable strategy withyounger students who cannot become fully developed criticalthinkers within the confines of the course, it is a rathercumbersome procedure. It is far better to get the student tocritically analyze the two concepts and come to therealization that the personal scientific concept needs to bereplaced.

Part of the goal here is for students to clearlyidentify their interpretation of nature. Students must bereassured that they hold views which are reasonable, butthere is another viewpoint that is now held to beexperimentally correct. Once the differing views of natureare clearly established, the role of experiment in decidingthe issue can be emphasized. It is made clear that physicsis an experimental science and the ultimate determination ofhow things actually work must be an appeal to experiment.

Tests were conducted in fall 1995 and fall 1996 usingtwo sections of the introductory calculus-based mechanicscourse taught by the same professor. In the initial year,attempts were made to produce conceptual change for all four

7

concepts based on a collaborative learning techniquedescribed below. Standard statistical tests show a cleargain for the group experiencing collaborative learning overthe control group. Because the same professor taught bothsections in the same semester, the results should be anindication of success. However, the professor teaching thesections, who was used to lecturing, supplemented bydemonstrations and audiovisual aids was dubious of theresults. He suggested that to be absolutely certain, in thesecond year a further modified experiment be made. This timein section A, concepts 2) and 3) were treated by thecollaborative group method and concepts 1) and 4) weretreated conventionally. In section B), the procedure wasreversed - concepts 1) and 4) were treated by thecollaborative group method and concepts 2) and 3) weretreated conventionally.

DETAILS OF THE EXPERIMENT

Basic procedure:In accordance with the usual procedure in

collaborative group exercises (P. Abrami et. al. 1993)students are asked to take on a particular role within eachgroup. Three to four students were assigned to acollaborative group. The students remain in the same groupfor all exercises, but may if they wish change roles ofreporter, scribe, timekeeper or critic in each activity. Foreach exercise, students are presented with a demonstrationor qualitative problem and are asked to discuss it for afixed time limit. The time limits are set so that none ofthe groups will be waiting for other groups to complete thetask. Typically all group members become actively involvedoften trying mini- experiments with erasers and otherobjects nearby. The energy of the group activity is thencarried over to the reporting stage and usually fires theinstructor with renewed energy (See appendix II for the tasksheets on the warm-up and regular sessions.) The onlytraining students received was a warm-up exercise in whichstudents had to come to a joint decision on who were the

8

three greatest scientists of all time. Unlike the regulartreatment sessions all groups were asked to report on theirfindings. Aside from getting students used to thecollaborative group framework, the purpose of this exercisewas for the students to learn to come to a joint decisionwithin a fixed time limit

Principle: We choose to try to make it clear that there are at leasttwo ways of looking at the problem. This must be done in anon-judgmental fashion. (For example until the Coriolisforce was understood, one could logically take the positionthat the earth is at rest or the sun is at rest.).Compartmentalization could occur because students are notclear that there are two distinct conceptual ways of viewinga phenomenon. A conceptual conflict is set up by having twogroups with different concepts report to the class. Thespokespersons of each group then debate the issue betweenthemselves and then the rest of the students are invited toaddress questions to this panel of "experts". There don'tseem to be any negative connotations to the presentations ofthe personal scientific conceptions by an "expert". (Thisissue was addressed by having students answer qualitativeessay questions on the final exam.) To underline that thereare two concepts in conflict, the two opposing issuespresented by the two groups are clearly stated and the classthen votes on which concept resolves the demonstration orqualitative problem. This voting is essential becausestudents who have compartmentalized concepts oftenmisinterpret statements in view of their eclectic viewpoint.Then the professor resolves the conflict by explaining withthe aid of experiments how the replacement concept describesthe demonstration or qualitative problem in accord withexperimental findings, while the personal (alternative)scientific conception fails to do so.

Test Instrument:The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) (Hestenes, Wells and

Swackhamer(1992))based on the original Halloun and Hestenes

9

(1985) instrument was used as a pre- and post- test. It isdesigned not as a test of intelligence, but as a probe ofbelief systems and has been administered at a number ofuniversities from Arizona State University to Harvard. Thisinstrument is reliable. (Nearly one thousand students tookthe test with seven different professors teaching differentsections at Arizona state and nearly identical test scoresoccurred in all the sections!) We use this test for normingpurposes only. We prepared three additional questions of thesame type and style specifically geared to this study.Results:

In fall of 1995 we tested the collaborative learningapproach on the four concepts by comparing 2 sections taughtby the same instructor. In one section collaborativelearning was used to teach the concepts; in the other astandard professor-centred approach was taken. To comparethe two sections, we designed three questions of the sametype and style as the force concept inventory (FCI). Thepre-and post- tests administered to the students consistedof the FCI (except for question #12, which was not coveredin this course) with these three additional questionsappended as questions 30,31,32. (These additional threequestions are found in appendix I.) The results shown intable 1 are only for students who wrote both the pre- andpost- tests and who signed permission slips to be includedin the experiment. (Only one student did not sign apermission slip.) On the post-test, the mean scores on theadditional three questions indicate that the treatment groupwas more successful in making a conceptual change than thecontrol group.

Table 1Comparison of the experimental and control groups Fall 1995.

Test Mean Equal Variance t-test

SD

Pre-testFCI +3 additional

Questions

A=10.94B= 7.86 0.061

A=5.29B=6.32

10

Pre-testFCI

A=10.61B= 7.64 0.058

A=5.15B=5.99

Pre-test3 additionalQuestions

A= 0.33B= 0.23 0.465

A=0.43B=0.59

Post-test3 additionalQuestions

A= 1.25B= 0.68 0.033

A=1.05B=0.78

A- Treatment group (22 students) received treatment of 4 conflict lab sessions

B- Control group (36 students) Concepts were taught via typical teacher-centeredapproach

The same professor taught both sections in the same

semester in the fall of 1995. There were doubts that theremight be differences in the two groups that could haveaffected the outcome. This was due to the pre test FCIresult shown in table 1 and the perception of the instructorthat the treatment group was livelier than the controlgroup. To remove these uncertainties, in the fall of 1996 amodified experiment was made. This time in section A,concepts 2) and 3) were treated by the collaborative groupmethod and concepts 1) and 4) were treated conventionally.In section B), the procedure was reversed - concepts 1) and4) were treated by the collaborative group method andconcepts 2) and 3) were treated conventionally. Foranalysis, we establish a baseline of all FCI questionsexcept 1, 5, 12, 16 and 22. Question #12 was not covered bythis course and the other questions do not relate to theconcepts under study. We also have two natural groupings:Question set I consisting of question #16 of the FCI and theadditional questions 30 and 31 relating to the two conceptstreated by the collaborative group method in section A.Question set II consisting of questions 5 and 22 of the FCIand additional question # 32 relating to concept 4) conceptstreated by the collaborative group method in section B.Analysis was done on only those students who wrote both thepre- and post- test and were present at the second conflict

11

lab session. (Permission slips were handed out at thatsession and only students, who signed permission slips areincluded in the results. The handing out of permission slipsturned out to be a method of checking attendance as nostudents refused to sign slips and only one student did nothand in the slip.) Taken as a whole, looking at the pre- topost- test gains for question sets I and II in table 2 wesee that it is statistically significant that the treatmentgroup was more successful in making a conceptual change thanthe control group.

Analysis of individual significant questions:Question #1 of the FCI addresses the issue of concept

1. Part II of the first task sheet found in Appendix IIrefers to the treatment given for this concept. Dr. Kalmantook a sheet of paper off the desk and a set of keys fromhis pocket and dropped them simultaneously from the sameheight. He then crumpled the paper and again dropped thepaper and the keys simultaneously from the same height. Itturned out that in this case the pretest responses werealready very high and the post-test responses were nearperfect for both groups so no inference could be drawn forthis concept.

Question #30 is the only question that especiallyaddressed concept 3; the idea that if a sandbag is droppedfrom an ascending balloon, immediately upon release theinitial velocity of the sandbag is zero. Students werepresented with the task sheet found in appendix II on thissubject and worked on this problem without any furtherexplanation. (Note that these are the actual task sheetsgiven to the students in the 1996 experiment and thereforethis task sheet and the task sheet for concept 1 bothcontain the identical warm-up exercise.) It turned out thatthere was no statistical difference between the two groupsin their improvements on post-test scores.

12

TABLE 2Comparison of the experimental and control groups

Fall 1996Question(s) Tes

t

Mean Gr

A (26students)

Score oup B (38 students)

Statistical significance

Status Group

Baseline (FC1-1,5,12,16,22)

pretest

7.30 8.31 Mann Whitney U test 0.79

t test 0.38

Set 1 (16, 30, 31) pretest

1.31 1.13 Mann Whitney U test 0.39

t test 0.41

Set 11 (5,22,32) pretest

0.54 0.53 Mann Whitney U test 0.92

t test 0.95

pretest

1.31 Wilcoxon .0033

posttest

1.88 t test 0.001

Set 1 (16, 30, 31) pretest

1.13 Wilcoxon .1075

posttest

1.39 t test .115

pretest

0.54 Wilcoxon .0455

posttest

1.00 t test 0.037

Set 11 (5, 22,32) pretest

0.53 Wilcoxon .0001

13

posttest

1.47 t test .000

pretest

.52 Wilcoxon .0249

posttest

.87 McNemar .0215

16 pretest

.59 Wilcoxon .3105

posttest

.74 McNemar .4531

pretest

.82 Wilcoxon .1088

posttest

.92 McNemar .2500

31 pretest

.71 Wilcoxon .7671

posttest

.74 McNemar 1.000

pretest

.21 Wilcoxon .2076

posttest

.36 McNemar .2891

5 pretest

.26 Wilcoxon .0033

posttest

.55 McNemar .0010

pretest

.10 Wilcoxon .0277

posttest

.36 McNemar .0313

22 pretest

.12 Wilcoxon .018

posttest

.53 McNemar .0063

14

pretest

.40 Wilcoxon .5286

posttest

.43 McNemar .7261

32 pretest

.27 Wilcoxon .0249

posttest

.55 McNemar .0215

15

See table 2. For concept 2, (bullet compared to adropped penny) section A was exposed to treatment andsection A significantly improved compared to section B,whereas for concept 4, (forces acting on a thrown baseball)section B was exposed to treatment and significantlyimproved compared to section A. For these concepts, thegroups were now experienced at working together havingperformed warm-up tasks and treatment on another concept.Students were presented with the task sheets found inappendix II on these subjects and worked on these problemswithout any further explanation.

Concept 2 (bullet compared to a dropped penny). Group A wastreated. Both groups were tested on questions 16 of the FCIand additional question 31. For question 16 as seen in table2, the result is statistically significant. For question 31the question is statistically indicative but not conclusive.

Concept 4 (forces acting on a thrown baseball). Group B wastreated. Both groups were tested on questions 5 and 32 ofthe FCI and additional question 32. As seen in table 2, forquestion 5 the result is clearly statistical significance.For question 22 and question 32 the result is statisticallysignificant.

Re question #30, the only question that especially addressedconcept 3; the idea that if a sandbag is dropped from anascending balloon, immediately upon release the initialvelocity of the sandbag is zero. The fact that that therewas no statistical difference between the two groups intheir improvements on post-test scores may have occurredbecause the groups were still not used to working together,but it is impossible to verify this. A more interestingexplanation is that this also had something to do with theway the question was framed. The key point is as pointed outearlier that students lack the ability to apply principlesgarnered from a problem to an apparently different problem.(Gick & Holyoak (1980,83)) Students may not recognize thatthe problem of a brick falling off the edge of a descending

16

construction elevator (question # 30 in appendix I) isidentical to the problem of a sandbag released from anascending balloon The premise of this paper is that thestudents' development of critical thinking is essential.This is the only way that students will not simplyaccommodate the replacement concept by compartmentalizationof their knowledge. After the first exercise, the studentshad not developed their critical thinking skills and thedifferent appearance of question #30 caused them to utilizetheir personal scientific concept instead of the replacementconcept. This would account for the result that nosignificant improvement of the treated group over thecontrol group occurs for concept 3 whereas significantimprovements were observed for concepts 2 and 4. To testthis idea in September 1977 in a two semester course onphysics for non-science students, Dr. Kalman tried thefollowing experiment: They had read about inertia in thetextbook, but only as applied to horizontal motion Dr.Kalman then presented the sandbag problem to them. By votethe entire class without exception concurred that thesandbag would fall immediately without rising. The correctresult that the the sandbag would initially continue withthe same speed as the balloonwith was then fully explainedin terms of inertia. The students expressed themselves asdelighted with the correct answer. Dr. Kalman then presentedan experiment from the “The Video Encyclopedia of PhysicsDemonstrations” (Berg(1992)) in which a ball was firedvertically from a “car” moving horizontally at constantvelocity. The video asks where the ball will land; in frontof, behind or on top of the “car” and then pauses. Fully onehalf of the class considered that the ball would hit theground ahead of or behind the “car”.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed and tested a collaborative group modelwhich is setup to promote conceptual conflict and toemphasize to students that there are two ideas in conflict.Studies were made in fall 1995 and fall 1996. In fall of

17

1995 we tested the collaborative learning approach on fourconcepts by comparing 2 sections taught by the sameinstructor. In one section collaborative learning was usedto teach the concepts; in the other a standard professor-centred approach was taken. Standard statistical tests showa gain for the group experiencing collaborative learningover the control group. Nonetheless, the professor teachingthe sections, who was used to lecturing, supplemented bydemonstrations and audiovisual aids was dubious of theresults. He suggested a further modified experiment, whichwas undertaken in the fall of 1996. This time in section A,concept 2 of a bullet compared to a dropped penny andconcept 3 of a sandbag dropped from an ascending balloonwere treated by the collaborative group method and concepts1 comparing the fall of a sheet of paper with a set of keysand concept 4 examining the forces acting on a thrownbaseball were treated conventionally. In section B, theprocedure was reversed - concepts 1 and 4 were treated bythe collaborative group method and concepts 2 and 3 weretreated conventionally. Standard statistical tests show again for the group experiencing collaborative learning overthe control group.

The immediate goal of showing that the model canproduce conceptual change for concepts which correspond toalternative concepts among many students was accomplished.The long term goal is to bring as many students as possibleto the highest level of critical thinking. A great deal moreresearch is required to accomplish this goal. As a firststep it would be useful to do some qualitative analysis onstudents thinking during the collaborative group sessionsand in answering the post - test questions. Also thecollaborative group sessions must be fleshed out with otherstudent - centred activities such as writing to learn. (SeeKalman & Kalman (1996)). Research is also needed to find outhow such a merger of student - centred activities can besuccessfully achieved.

REFERENCES

18

Abrami, P., Chambers, B. Poulsen,C., Howden, J. d’Apollonia,S., De Simone, C., Kastelorizos, K., Wagner, D., andGlashin, A. (1993). Using Cooperative Learning. Dubuque,IL.: Wm. C. Brown Communications Inc.

Berg, R. (1992). The video encyclopedia of Physics Demonstrations. LosAngeles, CA.; The Education Group.

Bowden, J., Dall'alba, G., Martin, E., Laurillard, D.,Marton, F., Masters, G., Ramsden, P., Stephanou, A., &Walsh, E. (1992). Displacement, velocity, and frames ofreference: Phenomenographic studies of students'understanding and some implications for teaching andassessment. Am.J.Phys. 60,262-269.

Bloom, B. S., ed. (1953). Taxonomy of educational objectives,handbook I: cognitive domain. New York, N.Y.: Longmans,Green, 1956.

Duschl, R. & Gitomer, D. (1991). EpistemologicalPerspectives on Conceptual Change: Implications forEducational Practice J.Res. Sci. Teach. 28, 839-858.

Gunstone, R. (1987). Student understanding in mechanics: Alarge population survey Am.J.Phys.55,691-696.

Gunstone, R., Robin Gray, C., and Searle, P. (1992). SomeLong-Term Effects of Uninformed Conceptual Change. Sci.Ed. 76, 175-197.

Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. (1980). Analogical Problem Solving.Cognitive Psychology 12, 306-355.

Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. (1983). Schema induction andanalogical Transfer. Cognitive Psychology 15, 1-38.

Halloun, I. & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledgestate of college physics students. Am.J.Phys.53,1043-1055; Common sense concepts about motion" 53, 1056-1065.

Hammer, D. (1995). Epistemological Considerations inTeaching Introductory Physics. SCI> Ed. 79, 393 - 413.

Hestenes, D., Wells, M. and Swackhamer, G. (1992). ForceConcept Inventory. The Physics Teacher 30, 141-158.

Hewson, P. and Hewson, M. (1984). The role of ConceptualConflict in Conceptual Change and the Design ofScientific Instruction. Instructional Sci. 13, 1-13.

19

Huffman, D., and Heller, P. (1995). What Does the ForceConcept Inventory Actually Measure? The Physics Teacher33, 138 - 143.

Jacobs, C. & Chase, C. (1992). Developing and Using Tests Effectively:A Guide for Faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kalman, J. & Kalman, C. (1996). Writing to Learn. Am. J.Phys. 64, 954- 955.

McDermott, L. (1984). Research on Conceptual Understandingin Mechanics. Physics Today (July), 24-32.

McDermott, L., Rosenquist, M. & van Zee, E. (1987). Studentdifficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examplesfrom kinematics. Am.J.Phys.55,503-513.

Piaget, J. (1929). The child's conception of the world. New York, NY:Harcourt Brace.

Pintrich, P., Marx, R. & Boyle, R. (1993). Beyond ColdConceptual Change: The role of Motivational Beliefs andClassroom Contextual Factors in the Process ofConceptual Change. Rev. Ed. Res. 63, 167-199.

Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P. & Gertzog, W. (1982).Accommodation of a Scientific conception: Toward aTheory of Conceptual Change. Sci. Ed.66 , 211-227.

Rosenquist, M. & McDermott, L. (1987). A conceptual approachto teaching kinematics. Am.J.Phys.55,407-415.

Roth, W. - M., and Lucas, K. (1997). From "Truth" to"Invented Reality": A Discourse Analysis of High SchoolPhysics Students" Talk about Scientific Knowledge. J.Res. Sci. Teaching. 34,145-179.

Salomon, G. & Perkins, D. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer:Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomena.Educational Psychologist. 24,113-142.

Slotta, J., Chi, T. & Joram, E. (1995). Assessing Students'Misclassifications of Physics Concepts: An OntologicalBasis for Conceptual Change. Cognition and Instruction13, 373 - 400.

20

Appendix I: Additional Questions

30. An open elevator at a construction site is descending at constant speed and a brick is knocked off the edge. Which of the followinggraphs describes the motion of the brick?

(A) (B) (C)

(D) (E)

31. Two astronauts are standing beside each other on the surface of themoon. One uses a rifle to fire a bullet horizontally and the otherpitches a baseball horizontally at the same initial height as the bullet. If the bullet weighs one tenth as much as the baseball, the time it takes for the bullet and baseball to reach the ground will be:

(A) about one tenth as long for the bullet.(B) about one tenth as long for the baseball.(C) about the same time for the bullet and baseball.(D) considerably less for the baseball, but not necessarily one tenth as long.(E) considerably less for the bullet but not necessarily one tenth as long.

32. An astronaut is playing golf on the moon. The path of the ball is shownbelow:

Which of the following responses are correct:

(A) At point C the golf ball is in equilibrium. No net force is acting on it.

21

(B) At point C the only force acting on the golf ball is the gravitational force of the moon(C) At point A the net force on the golf ball is a combination of the force of the golf club and the force of gravity.(D) At point A the net force on the golf ball is mostly the force of the golf club.(E) At point B the force of the golf club on the golf ball is less than it was at point A.

22

Appendix IITask Sheets for warm-up and the four concept

exercises.Task Sheet

Part I

1. Form a group with 2 others who have the same symbolat the bottom of their task sheet.

2. Assign roles to group members: timekeeper recorderand presenter.

3. Take 5 minutes to find out the background of theother group members.

4. Your group has 5 minutes to produce a list of thethree most influential scientists that the world hasever seen.

5. Groups will be asked to report on their findings.

Part II

6. Consider the paper and the keys in bothexperiments. Your group has 10 minutes to produce atransparency describing the following:

a) What is involved in the motion in each case?b)Why do the keys and paper react differently inthe first experiment?c)What conclusions do you draw from the secondexperiment?

7. Two groups will report on their findings.

23

Task SheetPart I

1. Form in the same groups as in last Friday's class. Ifyou were not present last Friday please come to the front.

2. Groups will discuss each topic for 10 mins.

3. Each group member is either a)Presenter b)Recorder c) Timekeeper

4. Two groups will report to the class. The two presentersfrom the two groups will remain at the front to discussviewpoints. 1st with each other then with the class. Dr.Kalman will moderate the discussion.

5. Afterwards Dr. Morris will clarify the "correct"situation from an experimental point of view.

Part II (Put solutions on the supplied transparency. Handin transparencies and markers at the end of class.)

6. A Bullet is fired horizontally from one end of a 10m longauditorium at 140 m/s.

1) Describe the motion of the bullet.

2) Compare its vertical motion with the motion of apenny dropped from the same height at the same time.

24

Task Sheet

Part I

1. Form a group with 2 others who have the same symbolat the bottom of their task sheet.

2. Assign roles to group members: timekeeper recorderand presenter.

3. Take 5 minutes to find out the background of theother group members.

4. Your group has 5 minutes to produce a list of thethree most influential scientists that the world hasever seen.

5. Groups will be asked to report on their findings.

Part II

6. Consider a balloon traveling upwards at 8 m/s. Apassenger drops a sandbag over the side of the balloon.Your group has 10 minutes to produce a transparencydescribing the motion of the sandbag. (Use diagramsand words.)

7. Two groups will report on their findings.

25

Task SheetPart I

1. Form in the same groups. If you were never in a groupplease come to the front.

2. Groups will discuss each topic for 10 mins.

3. Each group member is either a)Presenter b)Recorder c) Timekeeper

4. Two groups will report to the class. The two presentersfrom the two groups will remain at the front to discussviewpoints. 1st with each other then with the class. Dr.Kalman will moderate the discussion.

5. Afterwards Dr. Morris will clarify the "correct"situation from an experimental point of view.

Part II (Put solutions on the supplied transparency. Hand intransparencies and markers at the end of class.)

26

6. Your group has 10 minutes to produce a transparencydetailing the forces that act on a thrown baseball

1) Just after it leaves your hand.

2) At the top of its motion..

27