EDUCATING PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS USING HANDS-ON AND
MICROCOMPUTER BASED LABS AS TOOLS FOR CONCEPT SUBSTITUTION
Per Hamne*, Jonte Bernhard**
*Högskolan Dalarna, S-79188 Falun, Sweden
**ITN, Campus Norrköping, Linköping University, S-60174 Linköping, Sweden and Högskolan Dalarna,
S-79188 Falun, Sweden
ABSTRACT
Microcomputer Based Labs (MBL) have successfully been implemented in physics courses for preservice teachers. In
MBL-labs students do real experiments and not simulated ones and the computer is used as a measurement tool
together with an interface and suitable sensors. Conceptual change/concept substitution is facilitated by taking
advantage of the real-time display of the experimental results by the computer and by labs emphasising concepts
and connections between concepts. Evaluating the learning results with the FCI- and the FMCE-test show good
learning results. However, our data also show that the educational implementation of MBL is crucial. To take
full advantage of MBL the educational implementation is important, not the technology! Active engagement is
important!
1. INTRODUCTION
For some decades sensors attached to a computer have
been used in most experimental physics research laboratories.
An attachment of a sensor to a computer creates a very
powerful system for collection, analysis and display of
experimental data. Today several systems, specially
developed for schools and undergraduate courses, are
commercially available for different computer platforms. In a
Microcomputer Based Laboratory (MBL-lab) students do real
experiments, not simulated ones, using different sensors
(force, motion, temperature, light, sound, EKG…) connected
to a computer via an interface. One of the main educational
advantages of using MBL is the real-time display of
experimental results and graphs. This facilitates direct
connection between the real experiment and the abstract
representation. Because data are quickly taken and displayed,
students can easily examine the consequences of a large
number of changes in experimental conditions during a short
period of time. The students spend a large portion of their
laboratory time observing physical phenomena and
interpreting, discussing and analysing data with their peers [1
– 2]. This make it possible to develop new types of lab
experiments designed to facilitate better student learning and
to use labs to address common preconceptions.
2. MBL AT HÖGSKOLAN DALARNA
2.1 Background
In the 1994/95 academic year Högskolan Dalarna started
to invest in a new undergraduate physics laboratory. To
investigate the feasibility of MBL we started out with a
purchase of two ScienceWorkshop 700 interfaces and some
®
sensors from Pasco scientific. From this small start with
two PASCO interfaces six years ago we today have a total of
24 lab-stations (for 2–3 students), in three different rooms,
with ScienceWorkshop 700/750 interfaces and many different
sensors. The laboratories are mainly equipped with Power
Mac 7600/G3.
2.2 Implementation of MBL in courses for preservice
teachers.
As mentioned above, labs using MBL-tools were first
introduced in a small scale in 1994/95. In the academic year
of 1995/96 MBL were introduced in a larger scale and used in
courses for engineering students and in courses for pre-service
teachers. In courses for preservice teachers MBL-labs were
used in mechanics, thermodynamics and electricity/electronics
courses and in courses for engineering students were MBL
also used in wave physics and in modern physics courses.
In this paper will we discuss the implementation of MBLlabs in mechanics courses in more detail. It is wellknown that
acquiring a good conceptual understanding of mechanics is
one of the most difficult challenges faced by students.
Studies by many different researchers have shown that the
misleading conceptions about the nature of force and motion,
which many students have, are extremely hard to overcome.
These strong beliefs and intuitions about common physical
phenomena are derived from personal experiences and affect
students’ interpretations of the material presented in a physics
course. Research has shown that traditional instruction does
very little to change students’ “common-sense” beliefs [1 - 7].
Course
Year
Main student body
Preservice
95/96 Preservice Science
Teachers (grade 4-9)
Mechanics I 97/98 Engineering
Preservice
98/99 Preservice Science
Teachers (grade 4-9)
Preservice
99/00 Preservice Science
Teachers (grade 4-9)
Traditional
97/98 Engineering
“Method”
Early MBL
implementation
Full MBL + some
other reforms
MBL-technology
Formula
verification
MBL-technology
Some MBLpedagogy
Traditional
Pre-test
Average
~50%
Post-test
Average
71%
Gain (G)
~21%
Normalised
gain (g)
~42%
51%
73%
22%
45%
49%
65%
16%
31%
35 %
67 %
32 %
49 %
~50%
58%
~8%
~16%
Table 1. Results of pre- and posttesting using Force Concept Inventory [3] on different student groups. Gain (G) =
post-test - pre-test. Normalised gain (g) = gain / (maximum possible gain) [4].
Course
Year
Main student body
Mechanics I 97/98 Engineering
Preservice
98/99 Preservice Science
Teachers (grade 4-9)
Preservice
99/00 Preservice Science
Teachers (grade 4-9)
“Method”
Pre-test
Average
Full MBL + some 29%
other reforms
MBL-technology 33%
Formula
verification
MBL-technology 27 %
Some MBLpedagogy
Post-test
Average
72%
Gain (G)
43%
Normalised
gain (g)
61%
53%
20%
30%
62 %
35 %
48 %
Table 2. Results of pre- and posttesting using Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation [5] on different student
groups. Gain and Normalised gain defined as above.
The mechanics course discussed here is part of a study
program for preservice science teachers. The students are
studying to be certified as science teachers in grades 4 – 9 in
the Swedish compulsory school. As part of this training they
take a minimum of 30 ECTS credits in physics (ECTS =
European Credit Transfer System. 30 ECTS credits
corresponds to full time studies during an academic semester
of 20 weeks). The mechanics part is taught in a Mechanics
and heat course of 7.5 ECTS credits and the course is
calculus based.
MBL-labs were first used in mechanics course for
preservice teachers in the 1995/96 academic year. The labs
were based on physics education research and the approach
chosen is similar to the RealTime Physics [2, 8 – 9] approach
developed by Thornton et al. The labs focused very much on
fundamental concepts, understanding of these concepts and
the connection between these concepts. These labs specifically
addressed common student misconceptions. The mechanics
part of the Mechanics and heat course contained 5 labs of 3
hour each. The labs covered one and two dimensional
kinematics and force and motion mainly using MBL but also
using some videoanalysis and some simulation software. The
instruction for these labs were written in Swedish by one of
us (J. B.) and with the other (P. H.) as lab-instructor.
At the same time MBL-labs were also introduced in some
mechanics courses for engineering students. This
development was later supported by the Swedish national
agency for higher education. In the introductory mechanics
course for engineering students (Mechanics I) labs treating
Newton’s 3rd law and treating rotary motion using MBL were
also included and MBL-labs for an advanced mechanics
course (Mechanics II) were developed [10].
Because of economical realities the number of labs in the
Mechanics and heat course had to be reduced from the
1998/99 academic year. The mechanics course now come to
contain 3 labs. The instruction for these labs were written or
rewritten from older labs by the instructor who had the labs
that year. The labs treated Newton’s’ 2nd law, Impulse and
collision (Impulse – momentum theorem and Newton’s’ 3rd
law) and moment of inertia. However no lab discussed
kinematics and the labs were now changed into “formula
verification“ labs and thus not effectively addressing student
misconceptions.
The basic structure with 3 labs was kept in 1999/00. P.
H. was now again instructor in the lab as in 95/96. The
approach used in the “Impulse and collision” lab were
changed and the instruction rewritten. However, because of
limited time, the other two labs were not changed.
3. ASSESSMENT
3.1 Assessment instruments
Besides traditional course evaluations student learning
were assessed using the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) [3]
and the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluations (FMCE)
[5]. These instruments are commonly used among physics
education researchers in USA and by using these instruments
results could be compared with results obtained by others.
The FCI is more commonly used, but the FMCE-test is
developed to allow a much more careful and detailed analysis
of student understanding and is thus a much better tool for
analysis and as a guide for further improvement.
Except for the preservice teachers 1995/96, and the
traditionally taught courses included as a reference, both the
FCI- and the FMCE-test were used as pre-test (testing before
instruction) and as a post-test (testing after instruction).
A problem comparing learning between different groups
and instructional approaches at different institutions is that
the pre instructional knowledge and understanding could
differ very much. R Hake [4] have therefore developed a
measure called “normalised gain“. Normalised gain is defined
as gain divided by the maximum possible gain [(post test
average -pre test average)/(1 - pre test average)].
100
Coin Toss
Cart Ramp
3rd Contact
3rd Collision
Coin Toss
Cart Ramp
3rd Contact
3rd Collision
Force Graph
80
Mechanics I 97/98
Preservice Teachers 98/99
Preservice Teachers 99/00
60
40
20
Kinematics
Dynamics
-20
Kinematics
Force Graph
3rd Collision
3rd Contact
Cart Ramp
Coin Toss
Force Graph
Force Sled
Coin Acc
Acceleration
0
Velocity
0
Force Sled
20
Force Sled
40
Coin Acc
60
Coin Acc
3rd Collision
Pretest
Posttest
3rd Contact
Cart Ramp
Coin Toss
Force Graph
Preservice
teachers 99/00
Normalised gain (%)
% Student understanding
80
Force Sled
0
100
Coin Acc
0
100
Acceleration
20
Velocity
20
Acceleration
40
Acceleration
40
60
Velocity
60
Pretest
Posttest
80
% Student understanding
80
% Student understanding
Preservice
teachers 98/99
Pre (Mechanics I)
Post (Mechanics I)
Post (Preservice
Teachers 95/96)
Post (Traditional)
Velocity
100
Dynamics
Fig 1. Conceptual understanding in mechanics as measured by the FMCE-test.
3.2 Results
The assessment results are summarised in tables 1 – 2 and
in figure 1 above. As a comparison data from traditionally
taught mechanics courses are also included. A comparison
between different reformed curricula [11] is displayed in
tables 3 – 4 below using the normalised gain.
All courses, discussed in this paper, using MBL-labs have
achieved better functional understanding of mechanics, as
measured by the FCI- and FMCE-tests, than “traditionally”
taught courses. However, when looking in the fine-structure
of data, some differences can be seen: Preservice teachers
(PST) 95/96 and Mechanics I displays quite similar results
on the FMCE-test. However where are also significant
differences and PST 95/96 display a much poorer
understanding of specially Newton’s 3rd law. The PST 98/99
and PST 99/00 groups are also similar with each other, with
the exception of a much better results on Newton’s 3rd law
and “coin toss” for PST 99/00. A comparision between
Mechanics I and PST 95/96 on one hand and PST 98/99 and
PST 99/00 on the other hand show much better results for the
former group. However PST 99/00 displays a significantly
better understanding of Newton’s 3rd law.
Student course evaluation and comments by students
show that the MBL-labs have been vere well received.
4. DISCUSSION
Our investigation show, in concordance with results
obtained by other researchers [1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 11], that
MBL-labs are an effective tool for the development of a good
conceptual understanding in mechanics. Differences in imple-
Teaching Method / Course
Normalised Reference
gain (FCI)
Workshop physics
41%
[11]
Tutorials in Introductory 35%
[11]
physics (McDermott style)
Group Problem Solving
34%
[11]
Early
MBL
(Preservice ~42%
This study
Teachers 1995/96)
MBL (Mechanics I 1997/98) 45%
This study
Preservice Teachers 98/99
31%
This study
Preservice Teachers 99/00
49%
This study
Traditional
~16%
This study
Traditional (USA)
16%
[11]
Table 3. The ”effectiveness” of some our reformed
mechanics courses measured by the FCI-test using
normalised gains and compared with implementations of
some innovative curricula in USA.
Teaching Method / Course
Normalised
Reference
Gain (FMCE)
Workshop physics
65%
[11]
MBL (Mechanics I 1997/98) 61%
This study
Preservice Teachers 98/99
30%
This study
Preservice Teachers 99/00
48%
This study
Traditional (USA)
16%
[11]
Table 4. The ”effectiveness” of some our reformed
mechanics courses measured by the FMCE-test.
mentation of MBL and differences in educational approach
can mainly explain the differences in conceptual understanding displayed by the different groups above. Thus, the
educational implementation is of crucial importance. When
MBL is implemented as formula verification labs poorer
results are obtained. The results obtained by PST 98/99
(“formula verification”) and PST 99/00 (partly “formula
verification”) can not be explained only by the fact that these
groups had fewer labs. When the educational approach of the
“Impulse and collision” lab was changed between PST 98/99
and PST 99/00 drastic learning changes occurred in the understanding of Newton’s 3rd law. A more detailed analysis of
data [12] have shown that “formula verification” implementation in PST 98/99 have been especially disadvantageous for poorly prepared students.
MBL can thus not be implemented as technology only. R
Tinker [1, page 3] points out: “It is not usually advantageous
to simply replace a traditional lab with an equivalent one
using MBL. This kind of ‘substitution’ policy is easiest for
schools to implement, but the result of such a substitution is
often a simple lab made more difficult and expensive by the
inclusion of computers with no educational gain. The MBL
context adds capacity and flexibility that, to be exploited
requires the lab to be reconceptualized, giving students more
opportunity to explore and learn through investigations.
This, in turn, often requires a change in teaching style that
takes time and institutional commitment”.
A secondary, but very important, effect of using MBLlabs is the training of the pre-service teachers in the use of
computers and it’s use in a science education context. Since
teachers tend to teach in the way they have been taught it is
very important that pre-service teachers have experience using
computers and experience of active engagement methods from
their own training. Thus the MBL-labs serves the dual
purpose of better educating the pre-service teachers in physics
and in physics teaching.
The development work in the preservice courses will
continue. For PST 00/01 it is planned, among other changes,
to rewrite the labs using “formula verification” and instead
utilise the educational opportunities given by MBL. In near
future we hope to report the results of our further
development.
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Partial financial support from the Swedish National
Agency for Higher Education, Council for Renewal of Higher
Education, is gratefully acknowledged. Karin Bernhard is
acknowledged for technical assistance and Dennis Kuhl for
valuable assistance and advice regarding the FMCE-test.
6. REFERENCES
1.
R F Tinker (ed.), Microcomputer-Based Labs:
Educational Research and Standards. NATO ASI Series
F vol 156. 1996, Springer: Berlin.
2. R K Thornton, Learning Physics Concepts in the
Introductory Course: Microcomputer-based Labs and
Interactive Lecture Demonstrations, in J Wilson (ed.)
Proc Conf on Intro Physics Course, Wiley, New York,
pp. 69–86, 1997.
3. D Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force
Concept Inventory,. The Physics Teacher, vol 30, pp.
141–158, 1992. The FCI-test was translated into
Swedish by J Bernhard, 1997.
4. R R Hake, Interactive-engagement vs traditional
methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics
test data for introductory physics courses, Am J Physics,
vol. 66, pp. 64–74, 1997.
5. R K Thornton, and D.R. Sokoloff, Assessing student
learning of Newton's laws, The Force and Motion
Conceptual Evaluation and the evaluation of active
learning laboratory and lecture curricula, Am J Physics,
vol. 66, pp. 338–352, 1998. The FMCE-test was
translated into Swedish by J Bernhard, 1998.
6. L C McDermott, Students’ conceptions and problem
solving in mechanics, in Tiberghien, Jossem, and
Barojas (eds.), Connecting Research in Physics
Education with Teacher Education, ICPE, 1998.
7. J Bernhard, Improving engineering physics teaching learning from physics education research, Proc. of PTEE
2000, Budapest, June, 2000.
8. P L Laws, A New order for Mechanics, in J Wilson
(ed.), Proc. Conf. on Intro Physics Course, Wiley, New
York, pp. 125–136, 1997.
9. D Sokoloff, R Thornton, and P Laws, RealTime Physics,
New York Wiley, 1998.
10. J Bernhard, Teaching engineering mechanics courses
using active engagement methods, Proc. of PTEE2000,
Budapest, June, 2000.
11. J M Saul and E.F. Redish, An Evaluation of the
Workshop Physics Dissemination Project, Dep of
Physics, Univ of Maryland: College Park, 1998.
12. J Bernhard, to be published