Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Teaching and evaluation materials utilizing multiple representations in mechanics

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2013 Phys. Educ. 48 372

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/48/3/372)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 141.117.125.1
This content was downloaded on 30/09/2014 at 07:15

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

 PAPERS
iopscience.org/ped

Teaching and evaluation

materials utilizing multiple
representations in mechanics
A Savinainen, P Nieminen, A Mäkynen and J Viiri
Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

E-mail: antti.savinainen@kuopio.fi

Abstract
In this paper, we present materials and teaching ideas utilizing multiple
representations in the contexts of kinematics and the force concept. These
ideas and materials are substantiated by evidence and can be readily used in
teaching with no special training. In addition, we briefly discuss two
multiple-choice tests based on physics education research which can be
used to gauge students’ ability to use multiple representations.

Introduction MRs are essential for the understanding

What does science education or physics education
research offer a physics teacher in terms of
his or her day-to-day work? The answer seems
to be not very much [1]. Nevertheless, many
research-informed approaches have demonstrated
the potential to foster students’ learning in the
various topics of physics taught in schools [2].
Some of these successful approaches demand
intensive training and/or that the teacher adopts
a whole new curriculum, such as the Modelling
Method developed in the US [3]. The adoption
of a new curriculum is not often feasible for a
teacher seeking new ideas on how to improve
his or her teaching. However, we believe that it
is possible to integrate some of the innovations
produced by research into existing curricula.
Our goal is to provide physics teachers with
research-informed ideas and practices which are
relatively easy to use and which do not require
special training. More specifically, we shall
present instructional approaches which make use
of multiple representations (MRs; e.g., verbal,
diagrammatic, graphical and vectorial).
of scientific concepts and for problem solving
that demands more than just the manipulation
of equations [4, 5]. Moreover, an important
goal of physics education is to help students
to learn to interpret and construct MRs of
physical processes, and learn to move in
any direction between these representations.
Furthermore, Van Heuvelen and Zou [4] give
several reasons why MRs are useful in physics
education. MRs do the following:
• they foster students’ understanding of
physics by acting as visual aids;
• they build a bridge between verbal and
mathematical representations; and
• they help students to develop images that
give mathematical symbols meaning.
What follows is a discussion on how multiple
representations have been used in teaching
kinematics and the force concept in upper
secondary school physics courses addressing
mechanics.

372 PHYSICS EDUCATION 48 (3) 0031-9120/13/030372+06$33.00 c 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd

 Teaching and evaluation materials utilizing multiple representations
Teaching kinematics using multiple
representations
Good examples of practice questions on using
MRs in the context of a tennis ball thrown in the
air are provided in [6]. However, these questions
were used in a revision lesson, whereas our
approach employs MRs from the very beginning
of instruction in the first and only mandatory
physics course in a Finnish upper secondary
school (the students are 16 years old). The course
is intended as a general introduction to physics
for all students and it includes basic kinematics
and forces, in addition to many other topics. The
teaching of kinematics takes about four lessons,
with each lesson lasting 75 min.
The core idea in teaching kinematics is
to develop links between verbal and graphical
representations of motion and to introduce the
concepts of velocity and acceleration based on
graphical data analysis, instead of just providing
students with the definitions. In the case of
uniform motion, data can easily be gathered
using tape metres and stopwatches. For instance,
this kind of data can be gathered in walking
experiments allowing students to easily grasp how
the measured data relate to observed motions.
In the case of uniform acceleration, data loggers
should be used, or, alternatively, data provided by
a textbook (or another source) can be analysed.
Next, students present the data graphically
and determine the gradients first in the case of
uniform motion and then in the case of uniform
acceleration with increasing and decreasing
velocity. The gradients are used to define the
concepts of velocity and acceleration. Moreover,
the physical meaning of the area (or lack
of it) in each graph is carefully developed.
Transformations between different graphs are
practised; for instance, students are asked to form
(t, v) graphs on the basis of (t, x) and (t, a)
graphs. Special attention is given to the units
of the gradients and areas as they reveal the
identities of quantities. An example of the MR
material used is given in figure 1. Overall, the MR
material contains seven exercises on kinematics
and Newton’s laws utilizing MRs. These exercises
are available in [7].
There are two important points to note on
the teaching approach. First, pair discussions
are systematically used to allow students to
develop and express their understanding with no
May 2013
or minimum fear of giving a ‘wrong answer’ (this
is an aspect of Interactive Conceptual Instruction;
for an overview, see [8]). The outcomes of
the pair work are monitored by the teacher in
order to respond to any difficulties the students
may have. Second, the students are provided
with opportunities to form links between various
representations and to make sense of empirical
observations. They gradually learn to identify
the features of the same motion in various
representations.
In a later course involving more quantitative
problem solving, the graphs are used for
deriving the equations of uniformly accelerating
motion. Hence, a graphical approach is used
to build explicit links between the verbal
and mathematical representations of motion.
Examples on how to use graphs as problem
solving tools are provided in [9].
After the teaching of kinematics is complete,
the students take the Test of Understanding
Graphs in Kinematics (TUG-K [10, 11]), which
contains 21 multiple-choice questions on graphs
of position, velocity and acceleration versus time.
The TUG-K takes about 30 min to complete for
the vast majority of students, although the author
of the test recommends 60 min to complete the
test. The test addresses various aspects of using
graphs in kinematics, such as the following:
• six questions on graphical derivation
(i.e. determining gradients);
• six questions on graphical integration
(i.e. determining areas);
• three questions on moving between different
graphs; and
• six questions on moving between graphical
and verbal representations.
The post-test average in the TUG-K between
the years 2006 and 2011 was 59% (n = 332)
in the groups taught by author AS. Given that
the course is very general in nature, we consider
this a relatively good outcome. In comparison,
the average result on the TUG-K after teaching
kinematics in US high schools and colleges (total
n = 524) was only 40% [10].
Next, we present a visual representation tool
that can be used to foster students’ understanding
of the forces arising from interactions.
PHYSICS EDUCATION 373
A Savinainen et al

Figure 1. The motion of cars presented using multiple representations. The figures above represent the motion of
four cars (A, B, C and D) from left to right during a time interval of 3 s. All cars have the same mass. Neglect
any effects of resistive forces and assume that possible changes in velocity are uniform. (a) Describe the motion
of each car at the instant of 2 s. Use the notions of velocity and acceleration. (b) Graph velocity against time for
each car.

Teaching the force concept using multiple
representations
Visual representation tool for teaching the force
concept
It has been strongly recommended that teaching
the force concept should start with teaching
about interactions between objects (e.g., [12]). To
facilitate this, various researchers have utilized
several variants of a visual representational tool
to show the objects and interactions between
them; for example, system schema [13], symbolic
representations of interactions [14, 15], and
the interaction diagram (ID; [16]). The initial
evidence for enhanced learning in Newton’s third
law when using a visual representation tool came
from teacher–researchers [13, 15]. However, this
left the question open as to whether the positive
results could be replicated by teachers with
no background in physics education research.
Recent studies have shown that the visual tool
approach is indeed transferable to regular physics
classrooms without special training [17, 18].
Moreover, the use of IDs significantly enhanced
both the students’ understanding of Newton’s
third law and their ability to identify forces
when constructing free-body diagrams (FBDs).
An example of an ID and related FBD is shown
in figure 2. Practice exercises addressing IDs and
FBDs are available in [19].
The interactions are classified in terms of
pushing and pulling, and these are explicitly
written down in figure 2. This takes some time,

374 PHYSICS EDUCATION May 2013

 Teaching and evaluation materials utilizing multiple representations
Figure 2. The ID and the corresponding FBD when a sled is pulled at an angle with a rope along a road, with
acceleration.
but it fosters students’ understanding of Newton’s
third law and their ability to identify force pairs
arising due to interactions. Another possibility
is to write down interaction force pairs in a
separate table. As students gain confidence in
identifying the force pairs, the teacher might
consider relaxing the requirement of explicitly
writing down the force pairs (this is the practice
adopted by author AS).
It is also useful to separate the contact
interaction between the road and the sled into two
components: frictional and normal interactions.
This facilitates direct comparison with the FBD,
as the number of forces must be the same as the
number of interactions. We discovered that this
approach reduces the inclusion of extra forces or
omission of forces [18]. Moreover, it provides
students with a means of checking their work
when constructing FBDs. However, the ID does
not contain information on whether the object is
moving at a constant velocity or is accelerating.
We recommend adding velocity and acceleration
vectors to the FBD, as is done in figure 2. Note,
however, that they must be clearly separated
from the force vectors to avoid confusion. To
further practice MRs, students could be asked
May 2013
to construct various graphs (such as velocity,
acceleration and resultant force against time)
corresponding to the physical situation in figure 2.
Finally, we briefly discuss a test that can used
to evaluate students’ ability to use MRs in the
context of forces.
The representational variant of the force concept
inventory
We have developed the representational variant
of the force concept inventory (R-FCI) which
can be used to probe students’ representational
consistency—students’ ability to use different
representations consistently—in the context of
forces [20]. The R-FCI is based on the nine
items of the revised 1995 version of the force
concept inventory (FCI) [21]. The R-FCI contains
nine different themes of gravitation and Newton’s
three laws in different contexts. Each theme has
three isomorphic items (context and content as
similar as possible) in different representations,
yielding 27 test items. Each item contains five
multiple-choice alternatives: one scientifically
correct and four incorrect distracters. We have
used the R-FCI as a research tool. The results
show that the MR material and the use of IDs
PHYSICS EDUCATION 375
A Savinainen et al
have beneficial effects on students’ conceptual
understanding and their ability to utilize MRs in
the target domain [20, 22]. The test is available
for instructors and researchers in [23].
Conclusion
We maintain that research indeed offers some-
thing to physics instructors, as we tried to show
in this paper using our own teaching and research
as an example. The materials on MRs and the
approaches described herein have been used by
one of the authors in his teaching for many years.
More importantly, there is evidence that the use
of these materials can lead to enhanced learning
gains with other teachers as well. Of course, no
new materials or ideas are needed if a teacher
is satisfied with his or her teaching and stu-
dents’ learning outcomes. However, testing some
research-based instruments—such as the R-FCI
or TUG-K—which probe students’ conceptual
understanding and their ability to use MRs might
provide insight into students’ ideas that are not
exposed when traditional evaluation is used. This
could serve as a starting point in the search for
ways to improve students’ learning in physics.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a grant from the
Rector of the University of Jyväskylä and the
Academy of Finland (Project No. 132316).
Received 23 November 2012, in final form 9 January 2013
doi:10.1088/0031-9120/48/3/372
References
[1] Millar R, Leach J, Osborne J and
Ratcliffe M 2006 Research and practice in
education Improving Subject Teaching:
Lessons from Research in Science Education
ed R Millar et al (London: Routledge)
pp 3–23
[2] Meltzer D E and Thornton R K 2012 Resource
letter ALIP–1: active-learning instruction in
physics Am. J. Phys. 80 478–96
[3] Modeling Instruction Program available at http://
modeling.asu.edu/
[4] Van Heuvelen A and Zou X L 2001 Multiple
representations of work-energy processes Am.
J. Phys. 69 184–94
376 PHYSICS EDUCATION
[5] Meltzer D E 2005 Relation between students’
problem-solving performance and
representational format Am. J. Phys.
73 463–78
[6] Wong D, Poo S P, Hock N E and Kang W L
2011 Learning with multiple representations
Phys. Educ. 46 178–86
[7] Multiple Representation Exercises on Kinematics
and the Force Concept available at https://
www.jyu.fi/edu/en/research/projects/inclass/
Multiple%20representation%20exercises.pdf/
view
[8] Savinainen A and Scott P 2002 Using the force
concept inventory to monitor student learning
and to plan teaching Phys. Educ. 37 53–8
[9] Desbien D 2008 Graphs as a problem-solving
tool in 1-D kinematics Phys. Teach. 46 483–5
[10] Beichner R J 1994 Testing student interpretation
of kinematics graphs Am. J. Phys. 62 750–62
[11] Test of Understanding Graphs in Kinematics
(TUG-K) available through www.ncsu.edu/
per/TestInfo.html
[12] Brown D E 1989 Students’ concept of force: the
importance of understanding Newton’s third
law Phys. Educ. 24 353–8
[13] Hinrichs B 2005 Using the system schema
representational tool to promote student
understanding of Newton’s third law 2004
Phys. Educ. Res. Conf.: AIP Conf. Proc.
790 117–20
[14] Jiménez J D and Perales F J 2001 Graphic
representation of force in secondary
education: analysis and alternative educational
proposals Phys. Educ. 36 227–35
[15] Savinainen A, Scott P and Viiri J 2005 Using a
bridging representation and social interactions
to foster conceptual change: designing and
evaluating an instructional sequence for
Newton’s third law Sci. Educ. 89 175–95
[16] Hatakka J, Saari H, Sirviö J, Viiri J and
Yrjänäinen S 2004 Physica vol 1 (Porvoo:
WSOY)
[17] Savinainen A, Mäkynen A, Nieminen P and
Viiri J 2012 An intervention using an
interaction diagram for teaching Newton’s
third law in high school Proc. Conf. on
GIREP-EPEC 2011 pp 123–8
[18] Savinainen A, Mäkynen A, Nieminen P and
Viiri J 2013 Does using a visual-representation
tool foster students’ ability to identify forces
and construct free-body diagrams? Phys. Rev.
ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9 010104
[19] Interaction diagram and free-body diagram
exercises, available at www.jyu.fi/edu/en/
research/projects/inclass/Interaction%
20diagram%20and%20free-body%
20diagram%20exercises.pdf/view
May 2013
 Teaching and evaluation materials utilizing multiple representations
[20] Nieminen P, Savinainen A and Viiri J 2010 Force
concept inventory-based multiple-choice test
for investigating students’ representational
consistency Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
6 020109
[21] Halloun I, Hake R R, Mosca E P and
Hestenes D 1995 Force Concept Inventory
available (password protected) at http://
modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html
(revised)
[22] Nieminen P, Savinainen A, Nurkka N and
Viiri J 2012 An intervention for using multiple
representations of force in upper secondary
school courses Proc. Conf. on GIREP-EPEC
2011 pp 111–6
[23] Representational Variant of the Force Concept
Inventory (R-CI) available at www.compadre.
org/per/items/detail.cfm?ID=11958.
Alternatively, instructors and researchers can
request the R-FCI directly from the authors
(pasi.k.nieminen@jyu.fi or antti.
savinainen@kuopio.fi)
Antti Savinainen (PhD, BEd) teaches
physics to the Finnish curriculum and for
the International Baccalaureate. In
addition, he works as an adjunct
professor in physics education research
at the Department of Teacher Education,
University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
May 2013
Pasi Nieminen is a PhD student at the
Department of Teacher Education,
University of Jyväskylä. His research
focuses on learning with multiple
representations in physics. He has taught
physics, chemistry and mathematics in a
lower secondary school.
Asko Mäkynen is a PhD student at the
Department of Teacher Education,
University of Jyväskylä. His research
focuses on the use of the interaction
diagram in helping students to learn the
force concept. He teaches physics and
mathematics in a Finnish upper
secondary school.
Jouni Viiri is professor of science and
mathematics education at the
Department of Teacher Education,
University of Jyväskylä. He has worked
as a physics teacher in secondary
schools, polytechnics and at university.
His main research interest is in physics
education, in particular, developing
research-based teaching-learning
sequences, the use of models in physics
education and communication between
teachers and students.
PHYSICS EDUCATION 377