{"id":387,"date":"2017-03-16T00:21:54","date_gmt":"2017-03-16T07:21:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/danabjornson\/?p=387"},"modified":"2017-03-16T00:21:54","modified_gmt":"2017-03-16T07:21:54","slug":"interpreting-graphical-relationships-within-an-embodied-lfu-framework","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/danabjornson\/2017\/03\/16\/interpreting-graphical-relationships-within-an-embodied-lfu-framework\/","title":{"rendered":"Interpreting Graphical Relationships within an Embodied, LfU Framework"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/docs.google.com\/document\/d\/1BXK_fRkHrr5hGxlHBnFfyn2pIfOkz77dlwEaPS6ziLM\/edit?usp=sharing\" target=\"_blank\">In this activity<\/a>, Physics 11 students will not only be able to \u201ctalk the talk\u201d but \u201cwalk the walk\u201d. \u00a0Fully understanding position-time graphs and velocity time graphs have plagued rookie Physics students for decades (Struck &amp; Yerrick, 2009). In my own experience, typical misconceptions involve thinking that if the position-time graph has a positive slope, then the object is moving up a hill.\u00a0 Sometimes students will think that<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-388 alignright\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/danabjornson\/files\/2017\/03\/position-time-graph-300x234.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"192\" height=\"150\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/danabjornson\/files\/2017\/03\/position-time-graph-300x234.jpg 300w, https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/danabjornson\/files\/2017\/03\/position-time-graph.jpg 375w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 192px) 100vw, 192px\" \/> a curve, as shown, means that an object is speeding up initially, then slowing down.\u00a0 It seems that for as many correct interpretations there are, there are countless incorrect interpretations!<\/p>\n<p>In their study, Struck and Yerrick investigated if it was more effective to have students use probeware to analysis motion then to use video analysis or vice versa.\u00a0 Not surprisingly, they found that both groups of students had statistically significant improvements to their understanding and that it did not matter in which order the students underwent their inquiries. The authors concluded that since the digital analysis took much longer to undergo, that if a teacher were only to do one of these approaches, that using the Probeware was the most time effective and had almost the equivalent final results.<\/p>\n<p>Without question, the main obstacle that a teacher will encounter when using Probeware, such as Vernier, is the cost. Over the years, I have slowly amassed a set of motion detectors and interfaces, which was also helped by a grant that my school received that was earmarked for improving students\u2019 direct experiences with science.<\/p>\n<p>The activity that I have created uses the Vernier system along with the LfU framework, as outlined in Edelson\u2019s paper, \u201c Learning-for-Use: A Framework for the Design of Technology-Supported Inquiry Activities\u201d (2000).\u00a0 Having students move their bodies, to create the graphs <strong>motivates<\/strong> and heightens the <strong>curiosity<\/strong> of the students.\u00a0 As the graphs are created in real time, students receive immediate feedback. They must work in groups, so the social-collaborative <strong>construction<\/strong> of knowledge is fully activated.\u00a0 After engaging in a \u201c<strong>direct<\/strong> <strong>experience<\/strong>\u201d with the equipment, students will then answer questions within the shared Google Doc, to ensure that the principles of physics are not only understood but reinforced.\u00a0 The questions also serve to provide opportunity to <strong>apply<\/strong> the newly acquired knowledge in a <strong>meaningful<\/strong> way. Lastly, groups are required to <strong>reflect<\/strong> on their key take-aways from the activity, along with an opportunity to state what further questions they may have.<\/p>\n<p>What I particularly like about this activity, is that it also exploits the research surrounding embodied and embedded cognition. No longer should we limit our understanding of cognition to only the one organ: the brain. Learning also takes place when any physical activity is associated with the endeavor. Activities that challenge students, pique their curiosity and provide \u201cfruitful\u201d new tidbits of knowledge that can assist them with future problems, are optimal, should the new knowledge wish to be adapted (Winn, 2003).<\/p>\n<p>To go a step further, I would then follow the Vernier Activity with a <a href=\"https:\/\/docs.google.com\/presentation\/d\/1s0QzZuJT1y50oHPJMoWjS2mK3uPyS__Tzs94mFID5k0\/edit?usp=sharing\" target=\"_blank\">Peer Instruction lesson<\/a>, that reinforced these concepts. Through the Peer Instruction Framework, individuals are able to have their misconceptions dispelled through conversation with their peers.\u00a0 As the questions would directly relate to the Vernier activity, students would be able to apply their knowledge the next day, making use of all three mechanisms for adaption of knowledge:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Creating <strong>genetic algorithms<\/strong>: the \u201cif-then\u201d rules we construct when interacting with our environment and adapting our knowledge due to collecting \u201cfruitful\u201d information<\/li>\n<li><strong>Rule Discovery<\/strong>: rules would have been crafted during the Vernier activity but then further entrenched by applying the rules to the Peer Instruction questions<\/li>\n<li><strong>Crossover:<\/strong> applying the algorithms and rules in new situations could lead to rules combining into new rules for more complex situations (Winn, 2003)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Please feel free to \u201cMake a Copy\u201d of the Vernier Activity or the Peer Instruction Google Slides. \u00a0Admittedly, the instructions on the Vernier Activity could use some more media or images.\u00a0 I would eventually like to create a quick video of how to get the interface set-up and how to optimally hold the equipment to create the graphs. One thing that I truly believe in, however, is that activities do not have to be perfect out of the gates. After an initial run through, it is much easier to know what needs fixing up! This is much more efficient than trying to predict all of the deficiencies.<\/p>\n<h6>References<\/h6>\n<h6>Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities.\u00a0<em>Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38<\/em>(3), 355-385.<\/h6>\n<h6>Struck, W., &amp; Yerrick, R. (2010). The effect of data acquisition-probeware and digital video analysis on accurate graphical representation of kinetics in a high school physics class.\u00a0<em>Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19<\/em>(2), 199-211.<\/h6>\n<h6>Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.<\/h6>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In this activity, Physics 11 students will not only be able to \u201ctalk the talk\u201d but \u201cwalk the walk\u201d. \u00a0Fully understanding position-time graphs and velocity time graphs have plagued rookie Physics students for decades (Struck &amp; Yerrick, 2009). In my &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/danabjornson\/2017\/03\/16\/interpreting-graphical-relationships-within-an-embodied-lfu-framework\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":38898,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2721,1061,1704,420440,48861,1499576],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-387","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-collaboration","category-constructivism","category-etec-533","category-lfu","category-misconceptions","category-vernier-probeware"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/danabjornson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/387","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/danabjornson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/danabjornson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/danabjornson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/38898"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/danabjornson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=387"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/danabjornson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/387\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":389,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/danabjornson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/387\/revisions\/389"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/danabjornson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=387"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/danabjornson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=387"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/danabjornson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=387"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}