Physics plc presentation final wordpress
- 1. Teaching Newton’s Law through inquiry and ICT
- 2. Aim Investigate whether students from the experimental group who have undergone the PbI lesson will understand N1L & N3L better than their peers in the control group who went through conventional physics instruction.
- 3. Contents • Introduction & Literature Review • Methodology • Worksheet & Java Simulation • Results & Discussion • Conclusion
- 4. Introduction 1. Commonsense beliefs about motion and force are incompatible with Newtonian concepts in most respects 1. Conventional physics instruction produces little change in these beliefs, and 1. This result is independent of the instructor and the mode of instruction. -Halloun & Hestenes 1985
- 5. Introduction • confirmed that AJC H2 Physics students had similar commonsense beliefs • adopted the 4MAT approach to challenge the conventional physics instruction • aim to bridge the gap between commonsense beliefs about motion and force and Newtonian concepts - Chia K. B. et al.
- 6. Problem Identified Based on Force Concept Inventory (FCI) post test scores gathered by Chia K. B. et. al, many students still had misconceptions with Newton’s First Law (N1L) and Newton’s Third Law (N3L).
- 7. Literature Review - PbI Approach - Professor Lillian C. McDermott and the Physics Education Group, University of Washington - Java Simulation -Jackson et al., 1996
- 8. Methodology Control Group used Conventional physics instruction method Experimental Group adopted the PbI approach using the Java simulation and relevant worksheets.
- 9. Lesson in Progress for an Experimental Class picture of classroom
- 10. How the Groups were formed? Experimental Group (EG) Control Group (CG) Classes under YKW 20/12 12/12 Classes under AG 06/12 22/12 Classes under JT 05/12 21/12 Group Size 75 students 73 students (15% of H2 Phy cohort) (15% of H2 Phy cohort) Mean Subject Grade (MSG) 2.00 2.00
- 11. Methodology - Pre test & Post test • selected 15 MCQs from the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) o 7 Qs on N1L, 4 Qs on N3L and 4 others • administered to both groups before and after the topic on Dynamics was taught.
- 12. Methodology - FGD Focus Group Discussion with ETD and NIE staff • 3 students from each experimental class • Selected based on their varied receptiveness to the lesson. • Provide a dipstick of the lesson. • They were asked to comment on their learning experience and provide feedback on the lesson.
- 13. Worksheet & Java Simulation Handouts… …
- 14. Worksheet - Pg 1
- 15. Java Simulation
- 16. Java Simulation
- 17. Java Simulation
- 18. Worksheet - Pg 1
- 19. Java Simulation
- 20. Worksheet - Pg 2
- 21. Java Simulation
- 22. Worksheet - Pg 3
- 23. Worksheet - Pg 4
- 24. Java Simulation - Demonstration
- 25. Worksheet - Pg 4
- 27. Comparison of Scores for EG & CG
- 28. Percentage of students’ performance in N1L for the EG and CG
- 29. Percentage of students’ performance in N3L for the EG and CG
- 30. Results & Analysis - Statistical • Pre test and post test results of the students were compared • The improvement of the results for the students was investigated using the paired Z-test. • Since our sample size was large, we could assume the results to be normally distributed, with the test statistic to be
- 31. Hypothesis Testing Our null hypothesis is that students do not do better after our intervention programme, i.e. the results of the students is similar regardless of whether they are in the EG or the CG. Our alternative hypothesis is that the EG will improve more than the CG through our intervention program.
- 32. Hypothesis Testing Pre test and Post test statistics for N1L for the EG and CG Using the test statistic, the Z-value is 2.23 and P ( |Z| < 2.23 ) = 97.4% There is sufficient evidence, at the 5% level of significance, to reject the null hypothesis that the students do not do better after our intervention programme.
- 33. Hypothesis Testing Pre test and Post test statistics for N3L for the EG and CG Using the test statistic, the Z-value is -0.76 and P ( |Z| < 0.76 ) = 55.2% There is insufficient evidence, at the 5% level of significance, to reject the null hypothesis that the students do not do better after our intervention programme.
- 34. Focus Group Discussion • Gather qualitative feedback from students • Based on students' feedback, infer the intangible benefits of our lesson • Recommend to other Physics tutors strategies for teaching N1L & N3L
- 35. Focus group discussion in progress
- 36. Focus Group Discussion Feedback • Useful for visualising certain concepts • Moderate the use of such lessons to suit the curriculum demands. Only use for hard-to -visualise topics
- 37. Focus Group Discussion Feedback • Time consuming - time to familiarise with the user interface of the computer simulation - time to understand the worksheet since it is a self-exploratory learning process
- 38. Conclusion • Marked improvement in N1L but not in N3L • Students felt that PbI lessons enhanced interactivity and engagement. • Will recommend the use of Java simulation in hard-to-visualise topics
- 39. Q&A