Using Probeware and the Internet to Enhance Learning

 

Emily van Zee, Angela Cole, and Dienny Oropeza

Science Teaching Center

University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

ev14@umail.umd.edu, adz@wam.umd.edu, doropeza@wam.umd.edu

 

Kathleen Hogan and Damian Gomm

Hyattsville Elementary School

Khogan1234@aol.com    sirdai@juno.com

 

Deborah Roberts

Silver Spring International Middle School

Deborah_Roberts@fc.mcps.k12.md.us

 

 

As participants in the Building Learning with Technology project, we are developing a web site that can provide support for teachers interested in using probeware in their classrooms. When students use a probe connected to a computer, they can watch the computer draw a graph in real time as the data are collected. Students can move back and forth in front of a motion detector, for example, and watch a computer draw a line graph that represents their own motions. Children as young as first graders quickly learn how to interpret motion graphs with these devices. The web site will provide links to probeware lessons designed by elementary and middle school teachers, narratives of their experiences, and examples of their students' writings and drawings. Prospective teachers enrolled in a physics course that uses probeware can access the site and begin to envision how they might use these devices eventually in their own classrooms.  Prospective teachers also can use the resources of the web site to utilize probeware when they are ready to try out lessons in their placement settings.  Practicing teachers new to using probeware can visit the site to find many examples of ways to integrate these devices into their on-going mathematics and science programs.  College faculty can learn how these devices foster learning across the disciplines and age-groups. Prospective teachers, practicing teachers, and college faculty all can participate as researchers, along with their students, by contributing and interpreting many examples of ways that students learn to interpret line graphs.

 

Building Learning with Technology Summer Institute

College Park, MD

July 20, 2000

 

Supported in part by funding from the U.S. Department of Education, Grant No. P342A990179,

to Professor Stanley Bennett, P.I., College of Education, UMCP, sb24@umail.umd.edu

 

To be published in Fall 2000 Maryland Association of Science Teachers Rapper


Introduction

 

The purpose of the U.S. Department of Education's "Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology" program is to increase the use of technology in courses for prospective teachers.  The assumption is that they are more likely to use technology in their own classrooms if they have experienced learning with technology themselves.  A second purpose is to increase the number of students interested in teaching careers.  The Building Learning with Technology project involves collaboration among design teams of students and faculty at the University of Maryland College Park, Prince George's Community College, Prince George's County Public Schools, and EdGRID.  The design teams are designing, implementing, evaluating, and redesigning technology-enriched activities for use in courses for prospective teachers at all levels.  The Probeware and Internet Design Team consists of a science education faculty member, two undergraduate elementary education majors, and several elementary and middle school teachers who are using probeware in their classrooms.  

 

Learning with Probeware

 

Probeware lessons are learning experiences in which students can watch computers draw line graphs at the same time that something is happening.  The computer receives a continuous stream of data from a measuring device such as a motion detector, temperature probe, or light sensor.  The advantage of probeware lessons is that students can make immediate connections between the shape of a line graph and the phenomenon that the graph represents.  Information about the equipment and accompanying curriculum is available at http://www.vernier.com.

 

Initially known as micro-computer-based laboratories (MBL) , probeware lessons also are feasible with graphing calculators (calculator-based laboratories (CBL)).   Such real-time laboratory graphing experiences have been shown to be effective in helping elementary, middle school, high school, and college students learn how to interpret line graphs (Brasell, 1987; Mokros & Tinker, 1987;  Settlage, 1995; Thornton, 1987).  

 

Motion Detectors

 

Probeware helps students learn how to interpret specific features of a line graph.  A student can move back and forth in front of a motion detector, for example, and watch a computer draw a distance versus time graph for that motion. 

 

As shown in Figure 1, each segment of a distance versus time graph tells the “story” of a motion.  If a student stands still in front of a motion detector, for example, the computer will draw a straight flat (horizontal) line that indicates no change in position during the duration of the measurement.  If the student moves away from the motion detector at a steady speed, however, the computer draws a straight upward slanting line that indicates that the distance from the detector is increasing at a steady rate.  The student can make the slanting line steeper by moving faster or less steep by moving slower.   A line with increasing slope represents a motion with increasing speed.  If the student is slowing down, the line flattens out.   If the student moves toward the motion detector, the computer draws a downward slanting line that indicates that the distance from the detector is decreasing,   Students can learn to interpret a distance versus time graph by pointing to the line graph and stating where the line represents their moving quickly toward or away from the motion detector, speeding up, slowing down, standing still, or turning around.  

 

Once students can interpret specific features of a line graph, they can make predictions about ways to generate a new graph.  Students can look at a distance versus time graph, for example, and move in ways to make the computer draw a similar graph.  Older students also can make connections among different types of graphs.  They can work with velocity or acceleration versus time graphs as well as distance versus time graphs.  Switching among such graphs helps them understand these different ways of conceptualizing and representing motion.

 

Use in Undergraduate Courses

 

An undergraduate physics course at the University of Maryland uses probeware to engage prospective teachers in inquiring into physical phenomena (American Institute of Physics, 1994; Krajcik & Layman, 1993; Layman, Ochoa & Heikkinen,1996).   An undergraduate student teacher, Dienny Oropeza, reflected upon her experiences in this course as follows: 

 

As part of my Physics 115 course at the University of Maryland, I gained much experience with inquiry-based science teaching and student inquiry (namely my own).  The Physics 115 class was set up to promote group and self-investigation and experimentation with physics while guiding our thinking toward a meaningful understanding. I learned about the physics of motion by experimenting with the detector in Physics 115.  This device is basically a small box connected to a computer monitor and hard drive that "detects" motion through the retrieval and reception of sonic waves or bleeps.  There are many things one can learn about graphs, the physics of motion, and the detector by observing the line graphs created on the monitor.

 

Professor John Layman and his colleagues designed the course to prepare future elementary school teachers to teach science through inquiry as recommended in the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996).  A science education professor, Emily van Zee (2000) also uses the motion detectors in her courses on methods of teaching science in elementary school.  She invites graduates of the physics course to design and facilitate a motion detector lesson for the rest of the prospective teachers in her class so that all can become aware of these devices and their potential for fostering student learning.

 

Examples of Elementary Students' Experiences with Motion Detectors

 

A first grade teacher, Deborah Roberts (1998, 2000), had enjoyed the physics course so much that she arranged to bring her students back to the university to use the motion detectors during a class session.  She wrote the following reflection about their experiences:

 

My first grade students were extremely excited about going to the university to learn about science.  In my classroom, from the first day, I have tried to let my students know that each of them is a scientist.  When we got to the physics classroom, they asked to be introduced as first grade scientists to the [physics] class.  The first graders were not nearly as inhibited as I remember being when I was first asked to experiment with the motion detector.  They jumped right in, and tried everything.  It was not long before they were making connections between their body movements and the line on the graph on the computer.  One little girl was pointing to the graph on the computer screen as she told her first grade partner, “You did it!  You made the line go up and then it goes back down!”

 

…One group of students was trying to see if fast or slow made a difference.  They developed a plan that the first student would go slowly, and the second would go quickly.  Their prospective teacher used a function of the program to put one graph on top of another so that they could compare.  They decided the next time that the slow one needed to go slower.

 

Even the several students who have limited English language skills were able to participate and understand because of the nature of the experiment…My students remained engaged for approximately forty minutes before we asked them to stop and reflect on what they had been doing.  The students were able to “develop descriptions, explanations, predictions, and models using evidence” (NRC, 1996, p. 145).  Professor Layman observed, “When they were asked to describe their graphs…, you could see that they were looking at their graph as they were generating their description.  So they were literally reading their graphs and determining what to say from that.”

 

The first graders left with a very positive attitude about science and the nature of science.  Their learning came from doing and thinking on their own, rather than just hearing and then memorizing a set of science facts.  They were self taught, benefiting from this hands-on class.  Judging from the journal responses of the [physics] students, they also left with a very positive attitude about teaching and learning based on this experience.

           

One of the first grade students reflected on this experience in writing a thank you letter to the professor of the class (with spelling corrected here): "I like the computers.  I had fun in your class.  There were a lot of children around, learning about the movement detector.  When you go back it goes up like a hill and when you go forward it goes down.  I could see on the graph where I started." This student seems to have understood what the graph represented and to be able to interpret a particular point on the graph, the starting position.  Deborah presented reports of her students’ probeware experiences at several professional conferences and invited Emily to teach a seminar at her school so that interested colleagues could learn how to use probeware with their students.

 

Another first grade teacher, Kathleen Hogan (1999) participated in one of Emily’s professional development seminars and tried the devices with her students.  She confirmed the amazing ability of such young students to learn about line graphs in this way, even in a context of one teacher, one set-up, and a whole class of children.  She projected the computer screen so that everyone could see the computer draw the line graph as someone moved in front of the detector.  Kathleen described the lesson as follows:

 

Our goals for this initial lesson were to 1) discover and 2) discuss.  I had to plan this type of activity very carefully.  I knew through experience that I might possibly need something for the class to do while individuals were coming up…to “play” with the motion detector.  I designed an activity in which the children would have a piece of paper in front of them with information as well as questions and answer spaces on it to help them stay focused.  Likewise, this piece of paper would help me stay focused on my goals for the lesson – discover and most importantly, discuss what we discovered.  I did not want the discussion to get lost in the fun.  I wanted it to be part of the fun. 

 

We began the lesson by having a conversation about motion detectors.  There were a few students who did, indeed, have a grasp on what one was.  When I mentioned the motion detectors at many stores, one student said, “there is one at the grocery store…it is a black box up high that makes the door open when I come near it.”

 

Throughout the project I met the following MSPAP science outcomes.  The

•  Employ the language, instruments, methods, and materials of science for collecting, organizing, interpreting, and communication information.

This was a hands-on minds-on activity that enabled the children to actively learn.  They learned by moving in front of the motion detector, watching each other, and then discussing what they discovered.  Our play session was their data collection and our discussions later on were their interpretations and communication.

 

•  Demonstrate ways of thinking and acting inherent in the practice of science.

As the children “played” in front of the motion detector they discussed what they observed.  Then they problem-solved.  When they wanted to move in front of the motion detector to create a specific kind of line – they had to decide to move forward, backwards, or stay still, depending on what kind of line they wanted to make.  Likewise, they had to watch the graph as well as the person moving in front of it and interpret the graph based on how the person moved.  They wrote down their observations, made predictions, and then conducted a test to discover whether or not their predictions were right.

 

                     

 

Figure 2

 

 

 

As shown in Figure 2, a first grader drew a picture of the computer screen and a friend moving in front of the computer.  She wrote (spelling corrected here): "When I played with the motion detector it was fun.  I went back and forth and it made motions and my friend did karate on the motion detector."  Figure 3 shows the work of this student in drawing a line representing the graph the computer displayed and describing her own motion (with spelling corrected here) "When I went in front of the motion detector, it made a straight line when I stood still.  When I went backwards, it made a line that went up.  When I went forwards, the line went down."   Although this student did not include axes in the drawing, this would be a correct interpretation of the line if it were on a distance versus time graph.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3

 

Another participant in the professional development seminar, Connie Flowers (1999) designed a week-long task around the motion detector as practice for the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program.  She designed a series of lessons in the 5E format (engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, evaluation) and provided rubrics for the various activities.  A fifth grade student recorded the following conclusion on the basis of observing the computer draw a distance versus time graph as a student moved in front of the detector (with spelling corrected here):  "I observed that as the volunteer walked back, the line went up because the distance was increasing.  When they walked toward it [the motion detector], the line went down because the distance was decreasing."  This student made an explicit connection between the line graph and the concept represented on the vertical axis, distance.

 

Examples of Teachers' Inquiries in This Context

 

Several participants in a professional development seminar designed ways to explore their students' thinking while using the motion detectors.  Kathleen Hogan, a first grade teacher, and Pam Barton, a reading specialist, for example, wondered how playing with a motion detector can help children learn to write sequential directions.  Figure 4 shows an example of multiple directions a first grade student wrote for a graph (Hogan & Barton, 2000).  She wrote:  “First I go backwards.  Next I stand still.  Then I go forward.  Last I stand still.  Test:  I did it (smile face). “

 

 

Figure 4

 

 

Damian Gomm, a third grade teacher, and Katie Locker, a second grade teacher, wanted to know whether using a motion detector would help students write more in their interpretation of graphs they made themselves than they usually were willing to write (Gomm & Locker, 2000).  They found that the students were able to interpret their graphs in more depth when verbalizing their responses although their written interpretations typically were still lacking key descriptive words.

 

These teachers described their studies to faculty at their school and at local conferences in order to share ways that they were using technology to enhance science learning. 

 

Probeware Web Site

 

The Probeware and Internet Design Team is developing a web site that can provide support for teachers interested in using probeware.  The web site will provide links to probeware lessons that teachers have designed, example handouts, connections to local, state, and national standards, samples of students' writings and drawings, descriptions of students' inquiries in this context, transcripts of conversations that occur during instruction, narratives of the teacher's insights and experiences, and reports of teachers' inquiries in this context. 

 

As shown in Figure 5, the intended outcome is creation of a community of prospective teachers, practicing teachers, college faculty, and researchers who contribute to knowledge about ways to foster student learning with probeware technology.  Prospective teachers enrolled in  physics courses that use probeware can visit the web site and begin to envision how they might use these devices eventually in their own classrooms.   Then they can use the array of resources at the web site to create their own probeware lessons to try out in their placement classrooms when they are enrolled in courses on methods of teaching science and mathematics or when they are doing their student teaching.  Practicing teachers new to probeware can find many examples of ways to integrate these devices into their on-going mathematics and science programs.  Practicing teachers who are experienced in using probeware can enrich their understandings of ways to use these devices to engage students in learning.  Anticipated users also include college science and science education faculty who can learn how these devices foster learning across the disciplines and age-groups. Prospective teachers, practicing teachers, and college faculty all can participate as researchers, along with their students, by contributing and interpreting many examples of ways that students learn to interpret line graphs.

 

An undergraduate elementary education student, Angela Cole used the work described above to design her own motion detector lesson to try out with fifth grade students in her placement classroom.  Even though the students had only one hour to work with the devices, many were able to complete the culminating problem correctly.  They drew graphs and then described how they would move in front to the detector to make such graphs.  Angela wrote the following description of her students’ learning:

 

After the students experimented with the motion detector and we discussed its properties, they were asked to answer a few questions about what they had just learned.  Two students in particular really stood out during this activity.  The first student can best be described as the bully of the class.  This student is often pulled out of class for special education classes and ESL.  His handwriting and grammar are below the 5th grade level; however, I feel that he demonstrated a strong understanding of the graphs created by the motion detector.  When asked to create his own graph and then describe how he would move in front of the motion detector to make the graph, he was successful.  He drew a graph consisting of five parts and successfully described each part.  I was very impressed with this student's work because he is not usually engaged in class activities.  Not only was he interested in the motion detector, he also seemed to enjoy creating his own graph and writing about it. 

 

      The second student who demonstrated an excellent understanding of the motion detector and line graphs, went above and beyond what I asked for.  When asked to create her own graph and describe it, she drew a four-part graph and set increments on the x and y-axes.  She gave an excellent description of the graph.  "The way I would move in front of the motion detector is first I will start going toward the motion detector 4 meters away.  Then for about 5 seconds I would stand still.  Then I would walk backwards till I am 6 meters away.  Last I would stand still for 10 seconds."  Her explanation was accurate and detailed.  

 

As a student teacher fall semester, Angela will be able to explore various ways to engage her students in learning with probeware.

 

 

 

 

Invitation to Participate

 

We invite you to explore this web site at http://www.wam.umd.edu/~evz/blt.html.  Please give us feedback on what was useful (or not).   If you are using probeware, we also would be very interested in adding your insights and experiences to the web site.  Please contact Emily van Zee by sending email to: ev14@umail.umd.edu or call her at (301) 405-0056 if you are interested in participating in construction and/or assessment of this site.

 

*Supported by a grant from the Department of Education, P342A990179 to Professor Stanley Bennett, PI, UMCP.

 

References

 

Brasell, H. (1987).  The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity.  Journal of Research on Science Teaching 24, 385-395.

 

Flowers, C. (1999).  Can you graph it?  Presentation at Powering Up with Math, Science, and Technology Conference, Prince George's County Public Schools, Maryland.

 

Gomm, D. & Locker, K. (2000, April). How do motion detectors encourage students to write?  Presented at the Fairfax County Teacher Research Conference.

 

Hogan, K. (1999).   Using motion detectors in a first grade classroom.  Unpublished seminar paper.  Hyattsville Elementary School, Hyattsville, Md.

 

Hogan, K. & Barton, P. (2000, April). Imagine using motion detectors to get young students to write clear sequential directions!  Presented at the Fairfax County Teacher Research Conference.

 

Hogan, K., Barton, P., Gomm, D., & Locker, K. (2000, April ).  Using a motion detector in the classroom.  Faculty presentation, Hyattsville Elementary School, Hyattsville, Md.  Also presented at the Prince George's County Teacher Researcher Conference, College Park, MD.

 

Krajcik, J.S. & Layman, J.W. (1993).  Micro-computer-based laboratories in the science classroom.  National Association for Research in Science Teaching No. 31, 3-6.

 

Layman, J.W. , Ochoa, G. & Heikkinen, H. (1996).  Inquiry and learning.  New York: The College Board.

 

Mokros, J.R. & Tinker, R.F. (1987).  The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children's ability to interpret graphs.  Journal of Research on Science Teaching 24, 369-383.

 

Roberts, D. (1998).  Physics and first graders - What a good match!  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.

 

Roberts, D. (2000, March). Learning about Motion:  Fun for All!  Presented at Ethnography in Education Research Forum, Philadelphia.

 

Settlage Jr., J. (1995).  Children's conceptions of light in the context of a technology-based curriculum. Science Education, 79, 535.

 

Thornton, R.K., (1987). Tools for scientific thinking - microcomputer-based laboratories for physics teaching.  Physics Education, 22, 230-238. 

 

van Zee, E.H. (2000). Ways of fostering teachers’ inquiries into science learning and teaching.  In J.M Minstrell & E.H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science.  Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.