Response to: Using Data-Collection Devices to Enhance Students' Understanding

The article Using Data-Collection Devices to Enhance Students' Understanding by Douglas Lapp and Vivian Cyrus examines the use of data collection to reduce graph-shape-and-path-of-motion confusion. Microcomputer-Based Laboratory (MBL), Calculator-Based Laboratory (CBL), and Calculator-Based Ranger are all data-collection devices which can be used with a calculator or computer to analyze motion.

Graph-shape-and-path-of-motion confusion is a common misconception that students often have about the relationship between the path of motion of an object and a graphical representation of its characteristics (i.e. position, velocity, and acceleration).  The article discusses one major advantage of an MBL is the ability to create live graphs, or plot data in real time.  A reference in the paper, Braswell, believed that "the immediacy of graph production is probably the most important feature of MBL activities" (Lapp & Cyrus, 2000).  As an undergraduate in engineering where a large portion of the curriculum is focused on motion of objects, labs where data collection systems were used to create real time plots we're very beneficial as it allowed the user (me) to formulate their own conclusions and immediately investigate these theories.

Two interesting examples are presented in the article where students often encounter graph-shape-and-path-of-motion confusion. The first, includes a ball on a frictionless flat table where "the student expects the graph of position versus time to also be horizontal rather than a straight line with nonzero slope" (Lapp & Cyrus, 2000). The importance of this example is as an educator, teachers need to use discretion when choosing examples to present material and ensure the examples presented do not support or reinforce these common misconceptions.  The second example of "a graph showing the speed of a bicycle when the bicycle ascended a hill and then descended the hill.  Prior to instruction, many students assumed that when the graph increased, the bicyclist was going up the hill"  (Lapp & Cyrus, 2000).  As a cyclist, it is very intuitive that your velocity decreases as you climb a hill, and increases as you descend.  However, as a student it is difficult to translate these characteristics to a graphical representation.  A fantastic way to present this information would be to use a clip of the Tour de France, as climb information (i.e. grade, elevation gain, peak elevation) are usually presented as the peloton approaches the base and students would be able to see the cyclists struggle on the climb as the reach the peak, and then the death-defying-descent that proceeds with speeds of 100kmh.  This example would help connect the position-velocity-acceleration of a cyclist to a graphical representation.

I believe the point the author makes about creating hypothesis prior to conducting the experiment to promote "connecting graphs with physical events" (Lapp & Cyrus, 2000) is essential to developing an understanding between position/velocity/acceleration of an object.

Access to a resources including MBL, CBL, and CBR is invaluable to educators, but like all technology an instructor must carefully, or shall I say judiciously, decide whether technology is appropriate.

References:

Lapp, D. A., & Cyrus, V. F. (2000). Using data-collection devices to enhance students' understanding.Mathematics Teacher, 93(6),