Current Event #2.
John Olson, Secondary Education 625, November 1, 2006
Theory and Research in Teaching Secondary School Science
Article: The Teaching of Physics and Cartoons: Can they be interrelated in secondary education?
The question addressed in this research project asked if the use of cartoons in secondary physics
classes could be used as a means for “motivating and invigorating the classroom.” It also looked
at using cartoons “for identifying the pupil’s alternative ideas, and the assessment of their
learning.” (Perales-Palacios & Vilchez-Gonzalez, 2005, p. 1649). The study used various
outtakes from cartoons and had students and teachers “identify the unreal phenomena” (p. 1650)
in selected cartoon episodes. As the study progressed through the next stage or “experiment,”
students were asked to “write the physical law or laws that, in their judgment, would provide the
basis for the physical phenomena that they had identified” (p. 1651). In the advanced stages of
the study, the research looked into the use of cartoons as “a tool for problem-solving and the
assessment of learning” (p. 1653). Once these preliminary stages had been assessed and
evaluated, the project was studied using a larger sample of pupils with control and experimental
groups (p. 1654). Perales-Palacios & Vilchez-Gonzalez, concluded that “cartoons can represent a
resource in the classroom for identifying the pupil’s previous ideas, as well as for making an
assessment on their learning (p. 1668).”
The design of the research for this study was well constructed. As the study progressed through
four different stages, or experiments, each successive stage built on the data and observations
collected in the previous stage. In the first stage, a small group was used to observe and react to
the “unreal phenomena” that appeared in an episode of a “Pokemon” cartoon (Perales-Palacios &
Vilchez-Gonzalez, 2005, p. 1650). After the initial feedback, subsequent analysis of the cartoon
was repeated with the same students, both in a group setting and “through an individual manner”.
This second round of analysis was undertaken “with the aim of analyzing the reliability of the
(test design)” (p. 1651). It is evident from this process that the researchers wanted to get clear,
usable data to build their study on.
The following year, a second experiment was conducted under the same conditions, modified
only by substituting outtakes from a different cartoon strip (Perales-Palacios & VilchezGonzalez, 2005, p. 1650). By using the same conditions, the researchers were able to
demonstrate that their results were not corrupted by altering the procedures. By keeping a
controlled experiment, further credibility can be given to their conclusions. Students were asked
at this point in the study to individually write out their observations about the physical laws that
addressed the phenomena they observed (p. 1651). These student responses along with
subsequent interviews allowed the researchers to produce a list of conclusions that they could
then further test and verify in the next stages of their research. The way the researchers used their
initial data to build and design the further stages in the study was one of its greatest strengths.
The concept behind the third stage of the study, was based on a previous study which the
researchers addressed, “research into problematic situations of interest” (Perales-Palacios &
Vilchez-Gonzalez, 2005, p.1653). It is evident that Perales-Palacios & Vilchez-Gonzalez based
their research on previous studies and tried to build upon the research of others. By building on
prior research, they have reinforced that their study can be taken seriously.
The fourth stage of the study was conducted using a larger sampling of students. In this fourth
experiment, (Perales-Palacios & Vilchez-Gonzalez, 2005, p.1654) the data and research from
stage three was incorporated into a program which was then contrasted with more traditional
teaching techniques. This stage used a control group and an experimental group to test and verify
the conclusions reached in the previous stages. By using a larger sampling of students, broken
into control and experimental groups, the researchers’ final data and conclusions are supported by
the use of good scientific research methods.
The evaluation of this stage used a pre-test which showed little deviation in results between each
of the two groups. Each group was then instructed using the teacher’s standard methodology
(Perales-Palacios & Vilchez-Gonzalez, 2005, p1655). In two follow up sessions, the control
group worked with the traditional problem solving methodology of the instructor. The
experimental group had one session of traditional methodology, then substituted the second
session with the observation of cartoons following the guidelines developed in stage 3. Both
groups were given the same post-test. This portion of the study had only one manipulated
variable (analyzing cartoons), (p. 1655) so any significant measurement detected on the post test
could be reliably attributed to the cartoon observation session. The data from the post-test
supported the idea that the cartoon observation and evaluation did increase the student’s interest
and understanding. The experimental group showed a gain of 1.62 points on the post-test, (p.
1665) the control group showed a more modest gain of .36 points, based on a post-test of 19
questions. This significant difference in the scores of the post-test, when considering the tight
controls and the progressive design of the research, demonstrates that this was a carefully
monitored and reliably developed study.
This study has some areas that are questionable, not in the area of design and implementation, but
in the size of the populations studied. Stages 1-3, where the initial groundwork was developed,
was done with only a few students. In stage 3, the three students were all female (Perales-Palacios
& Vilchez-Gonzalez, 2005, p. 1653). A larger sampling of both number and gender would give
the groundwork more credibility. By the authors’ own admission, the work was subject to “the
limitations of external validity that a study like this has (p.1653).” Since this research had not
been repeated elsewhere, although the findings were interesting and well developed, they do not
have a large enough sampling to be considered conclusive. The team further stated that “the
usefulness should be tested with larger and more diverse samples of students.” (p. 1666) Although
this is a weakness in the study, the authors demonstrate that they understand the fundamentals of
what would make their research more reliable, which underscores the strength of their research
techniques.
I found this study to be very enlightening. The preciseness and care used in designing the
experiments helps me appreciate how careful one needs to be in designing any experiment if one
expects reliable outcomes. The idea of incorporating a high interest medium (cartoons) into the
curriculum is also appealing. I am interested in the role that cartoons, comic strips, and humor
can play in the teaching of science, and this article has motivated me to take a closer look at the
potential these mediums could have in lesson design and “alternative assessment” (p.1652). One
other factor that the study addressed, “stimulating debate about observations of phenomena,” (p.
1662) was a bit convicting. It made me reflect on how seldom my students are allowed the
opportunity to “debate” with one another on what they think is going on in an experiment or
observation—usually they are being told what to look for. It is apparent that one can get too
comfortable with what one has always done, and miss out on the potential that comes with
introducing new approaches and new ideas.
References
Perales-Palacios, F. J., & Vilchez-Gonzalez, J. M. (2005). The teaching of physics and cartoons:
Can they be interrelated in secondary education? International Journal of Science Education,
27(14), 1647-1670. Retrieved September 21, 2006, from ERIC database.