Enhancing Student Learning and Conceptual
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Implementing an Inquiry Based Approach in First Year Undergraduate Physics Laboratories with Emphasis on Improving Graphing Literacy Author Thomas Wemyss B.Sc. (Hons) Thesis submitted to Dublin City University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Physical Sciences Centre for the Advancement of Science Teaching and Learning Dublin City University December 2009 Research Supervisor Dr. Paul van Kampen Declaration I hereby certify that this material, which I now submit for assessment on the programme of study leading to the award of Doctor of Philosophy is entirely my own work, that I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the work is original, and does not to the best of my knowledge breach any law of copyright, and has not been taken from the work of others save and to the extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged within the text of my work. Signed: ________________________ (Candidate) ID No.: 51423711 Date: ________________________ Abstract We have developed the first year undergraduate physics labs to incorporate both open and guided inquiry in a flexible approach. By doing this we have shown that there have been benefits in both the affective and the cognitive domain for our students. One of the main aims for the labs was to develop necessary transferrable scientific skills. Developing graphing skills was an important part of the work that we did in the labs. Through our work we have developed assessments to test students’ general graphing literacy and developed curriculum to tackle their difficulties. The difficulties addressed are with both qualitative and quantitative graphs. Acknowledgements I would first like to thank my supervisor Paul van Kampen. Paul has given me a massive amount of support, input and encouragement throughout the four years, without which my project would not have been possible. I would also like to thank my parents, Larry and Josephine Wemyss, for always being there when I needed them over the last four years and before. My time in the School of Physical Sciences in DCU has been an overwhelmingly positive experience, and this is because of help and support from all the staff and technicians. These include Des Lavelle, Pat Wogan, Mike Aughey, Lisa Peyton and Alan Hughes, all of whom went beyond the call of duty and were endlessly generous with their time and suggestions. I would also like to thank the former and current heads of the School, John Costello and Greg Hughes, both of whom were very helpful and accommodating. My Viva and transfer were personally two important events over the last few years. Odilla Finlayson, Enda McGlynn, Paul Swift and Ton Ellermeijer were enormously helpful giving their time and expertise to add great value to my thesis and project. Also thanks to J.J. Brennan, Jodie Dunne and David Smith along with all my friends and colleagues, whose help and support has to me and this project been very important. Table of Contents Chapter 1: Integrating inquiry into first year undergraduate labs: Background .... 1 1.1: Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 1.2: Students’ background .................................................................................. 3 1.2.1 Students’ experience of physics in formal education. .......................... 3 1.2.2 Students’ prior experience of experiments - an Irish context. .............. 3 1.2.3 Students’ experiences of experiments in science .................................. 5 1.3 Conventional Laboratories ......................................................................... 10 1.3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 10 1.3.2 A conventional approach to teaching Hooke’s Law ........................... 11 1.4 Defining inquiry in teaching ...................................................................... 12 1.4.1 Inquiry and curriculum ....................................................................... 12 1.4.2 Inquiry as a method ............................................................................. 13 1.4.3 Inquiry as a goal of the lab .................................................................. 14 1.4.4 Autonomy in labs ................................................................................ 15 1.5 Experience mismatch ................................................................................. 16 1.6 Our approach for moving towards inquiry as an outcome ......................... 17 References ............................................................................................................ 18 Chapter 2: Integrating inquiry into first year undergraduate labs: Implementation .................................................................................................................................... 21 2.1 Overview of aims ....................................................................................... 21 i 2.1.1 Enjoyment in the labs .......................................................................... 21 2.1.2 Developing useful skills. ..................................................................... 22 2.1.3 Conceptual Development. ................................................................... 23 2.2 Practical Implementation ........................................................................... 24 2.2.1 Equipment ........................................................................................... 24 2.2.2 Pre-labs ............................................................................................... 24 2.3 Assessment of labs ..................................................................................... 26 2.3.1 Learning environment/ Enjoyment ..................................................... 26 2.3.2 Assessment of student learning. .......................................................... 28 2.4 Implementing guided labs with a practical approach to autonomy ............ 29 2.4.1 Experiment 1: Prescriptive guided inquiry. ........................................ 29 2.4.2 Experiment 4: More autonomy for students. ...................................... 30 2.4.3 Final investigations: Implementing new skills in the labs. ................. 31 2.5 Students’ experiences of the labs ............................................................... 33 2.5.1 Students’ experience in the laboratory space ...................................... 33 2.6 Investigative skills ...................................................................................... 35 2.6.1 Ability to phrase a scientific hypothesis (N=197): ............................. 36 2.6.2 Understanding the experiment (N=197): ............................................ 36 2.6.3 Control of variables (N=147 out of 197): ........................................... 36 2.6.4 Number of oscillations, masses, and repeat measurements (N=147 out of 197): .................................................................................................. 37 2.6.5 Tabulation and graphing (N=147 out of 197): .................................... 38 ii 2.7 Findings ...................................................................................................... 38 References: ....................................................................................................... 39 Chapter 3: Overview of Graphing in Physics Labs .............................................. 40 3.1 Overview .................................................................................................... 40 3.2 Motivation .................................................................................................. 41 3.2.1 The importance of context .................................................................. 43 3.2.2 The format of the questions ................................................................ 45 3.3 Graphing difficulties .................................................................................. 46 3.3.1 Difficulties in constructing a trend line .............................................. 46 3.3.2 Difficulties with interpreting a graph .................................................. 48 3.4 Graphing in the science lab ........................................................................ 51 References ........................................................................................................ 53 Chapter 4: Assessing graphing literacy in the labs. ............................................. 55 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 55 4.2 Chronology ........................................................................................... 55 4.3. Student difficulties representing a constant rise in water level ............ 57 4.3.1. Overview ............................................................................................ 57 4.3.2. Two beakers, same flow rate, same width, different height ............... 57 4.3.3. Two beakers, same flow rate, different width, same height ............... 61 4.3.4. Two beakers: same flow rate, different width, different height ......... 64 4.3.5. Two beakers: different flow rate, same width, different height ......... 67 iii 4.3.6 Two beakers: same flow rate, same width, same height, different starting levels ........................................................................................ 69 4.3.7 Summary of findings for linear water level graphs ...........................