Teaching Newton’s Law through

inquiry and ICT

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.

Contents

• Introduction & Literature Review

• Methodology

• Worksheet & Java Simulation

• Results & Discussion

• Conclusion

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

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.

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).

Literature Review

- PbI Approach - Professor Lillian C. McDermott and the Physics Education

Group, University of Washington

- Java Simulation -Jackson et al., 1996

Methodology

Control Group

used Conventional physics instruction method

Experimental Group

adopted the PbI approach using the Java

simulation and relevant worksheets.

Lesson in Progress for an

Experimental Class

picture of classroom

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

(15% of H2 Phy cohort)

73 students

(15% of H2 Phy

cohort)

Mean Subject Grade (MSG) 2.00

2.00

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.

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.

Worksheet & Java Simulation

Handouts… …

Worksheet - Pg 1

Java Simulation

Java Simulation

Java Simulation

Worksheet - Pg 1

Java Simulation

Worksheet - Pg 2

Java Simulation

Worksheet - Pg 3

Worksheet - Pg 4

Java Simulation - Demonstration

Worksheet - Pg 4

Results & Analysis

Comparison of Scores for EG & CG

Percentage of students’ performance

in N1L for the EG and CG

Percentage of students’ performance

in N3L for the EG and CG

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Focus group

discussion in

progress

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

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

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

Q & A