Running head: Initial Curriculum Order 1

Analyzing the Impact of Initial Curriculum Order in Physics

Caleb Mayes

8/15/2019
Initial Curriculum Order 2

Capstone Prospectus

Topic

The topic of this proposed study is whether changing the initial curriculum order of high

school physics has an impact on student understanding and perception. As a high school physics

teacher, student understanding and perception of physics are quite literally my job, governed by

either the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for on level physics (Texas Education Agency,

1997, p. 112.39), or the College Board for AP Physics (College Board, 2019). Physics is a

required subject for most high school students, and is recognized as a fundamental science upon

which other sciences, engineering, and technology are built (Good, 1991). It is a cornerstone of

high school education, and has the potential to fundamentally alter a student’s perception of their

world. Naturally, this also makes physics of critical interest to the education field as a whole.

However, all of this impact hinges upon the connections the students make in the first unit of

physics, which makes this topic of critical interest to many.

Problem Statement

The order of the initial two units of high school physics, kinematics and dynamics

(Newton’s Laws), starts students on one of the most difficult units and may impact student

motivation and understanding in ways that have not been studied to date. In my first years

teaching physics, students routinely responded with dismay when presented with the kinematic

equations, with many seeming to accept that they will not understand the material and giving up

before the year has truly begun. The relationship between the student’s first interactions with

high school physics and their understanding of physics moving forward is a critically under-

studied area which will be addressed with this study of high school students in several AP

Physics 1 classes.
Initial Curriculum Order 3

Problem discussion. There are many teachers and scholars who are aware of the

deficiencies in the current curricular and instructional methods of teaching physics. In the past

few decades there have been attempts by a variety of individuals and institutions to rectify those

deficiencies (Chin, Chi, & Schwartz, 2016, Deans, Keller, Price, & Crouse, 2015, and Fernandez,

Ritchie, & Barker, 2008). Some of these attempts have been moderately successful at addressing

pieces of the issue (Low & Wilson 2017), while others have not shown significant promise

(Psycharis, 2016). For the most part these attempts were based off of instructional changes, with

the majority of studies looking at inquiry based methods (Hughes, Mona, Wilson, McAninch,

Seamans, & Stout, 2017 and Lee & Park 2013) student agency (Roorda, Vos, & Goedhart, 2014),

or group work (Ergin, 2016). Other studies have looked at utilizing technology to give students

more individualized care (Huberth, Chen, Tritz, & Mckay, 2015) or student engagement (Hewitt,

2019). A different avenue of study that has also been taken is looking at the impact the teacher’s

teaching style (Mulhall & Gunstone, 2007), and at the need of the teacher to determine the

curriculum type and pacing to find the best possible individual fit (Feldman & Kropf, 1999 and

Wild, Galosy, Kagle, Gillespie, & Rozelle, 2018). The one thing all of these studies have in

common is that they are seeking to redress the woefully inaccurate view of physics that so many

students hold, inaccuracies that stay with them into adulthood and have resulted in the widely

held belief that physics is a difficult to understand subject (Sumrall & Sumrall, 2018).

Considering that physics is the cornerstone of almost every type of engineering, construction,

and technology these deficiencies are of critical importance to schools, and indeed to our

country.

Intriguingly, many of the studies focus on the area of Newton’s laws as it is

simultaneously a foundation for undergraduate physics and one of the most commonly
Initial Curriculum Order 4

misunderstood topics. And while curriculum reform has been looked at in broad scope,

practically no studies have looked at a critical reordering of the curriculum. Accordingly, this

seems a ripe area to study, specifically the very first units the students see. Could a simple

reordering of the initial physics units have an impact on either student confidence or

understanding?

Proposed Solution

This study will swap the initial unit order (Kinematics  Dynamics) in order to ascertain

whether the classic unit structure is part of the reason physics is chronically misunderstood. This

curricular change necessitates a significantly altered instructional method as well. Students in

the altered curriculum will study dynamics without having previously studied motion, which

means that rather than building upon kinematics to explain Newton’s Laws, students will

eventually derive kinematics from Newton’s Laws. As a result, dynamics will need to be taught

in an inquiry-based manner.

The unit will begin with a lab looking at forces. Students will be asked to analyze a

number of simple situations to determine why the system (typically a rubber ball) is doing what

it is doing. For instance, students will observe a ball that is released from height and will have to

explain why it falls. They will then observe a ball on a flat surface and explain why it is not

falling. What if the ball is pushed? Or if the suface is inclined? This exploration will lead into a

discussion of Newton’s First Law, and should take three class periods (approximately 45 minutes

per period) to complete. Further labs will build on this foundation to discuss the other laws

(three class periods), their implications (three class periods), and how students already intuitively

understand and utilize these laws on a daily basis (three class periods). This will help the

students cognitively link their life experience with the terminology and thought process that
Initial Curriculum Order 5

forms the foundation of physics. Integrated with the inquiry labs are ten-minute lectures to

explicitly make connections, correct common misconceptions, and help students learn the

terminology of science. These twelve class periods of labs constitute nine instructional hours,

and will give a strong foundation in Newton’s Laws. It should be noted that despite each three

period sub-unit being called a lab, there are several different instructional strategies in each lab

that come to bear including direct teach, inquiry-based learning, and small group instruction.

Participants

The participants will consist of approximately ninety-three public high school students

split into four AP Physics 1 classes. These students tend to be higher performing academically

than their peers, and they come from diverse backgrounds. Preliminary data from the school

district shows 20% economically disadvantaged, 28% gifted and talented, and about 9% have a

504 plan in place. Racial demographics are 68% Caucasian, 19% Hispanic, 7% Black, 3% two

or more races, 2% Asian, and 1% Pacific Islander. These statistics are almost exactly

representative of the school as a whole.

Participants will by necessity be selected by class period, since it is not feasible to

effectively teach two mutually exclusive curriculum to a single class. Two class periods will

directly participate in the modified curriculum, the other two will serve as control. All students

will be given the same assessments at the appropriate place in the curriculum, and all will

participate in the reflection questions. Students who do not wish to participate in any capacity

have been moved to other class periods.

Research Questions
Initial Curriculum Order 6

1. What impact does the curriculum restructure have on student’s self-confidence in

understanding physics?
2. How does reordering the units affect student understanding of Newton’s Laws?

Data Collection and Instruments

Collection methods will include a closed ended questionnaire with a rating scale at the

beginning of the school year to gauge incoming student perception, a pre-unit test to measure

previous knowledge, an end-of-unit survey with a rating scale to measure student perception

before the post-unit test, and a post-unit test to gauge actual understanding.

The pre-test and post-test are identical ten question tests that have been attached. The

initial questionnaire will ask students rate their perceived initial understanding of physics, the

difficulty they anticipate from the class, and their anticipation of their own personal success on a

scale of one to ten (one being low, ten being high). The end-of-unit survey is a single page

survey, designed to be completed immediately prior to the post-unit test, which asks students to

rate their confidence in their current knowledge, how difficult the class feels, and their

anticipation of success on a scale of one to ten (one being low, ten being high).

Data Analysis

There will be a simple comparison between the rating scales to see how student

perception has changed from the initial survey to the end-of-unit survey. An analysis of variance

will be conducted for various demographics to see if there are any anomalies. The mean scores

for the control and study classes will then be subjected to another analysis of variance. These

statistics will be used to answer the first research question in detail.

The second research question will be answered by analyzing the scores of the two

tests. The tests are a simple ten point scale; the questions are designed to test generalized

understanding of Newton’s Laws with equal importance so there is no need for a more
Initial Curriculum Order 7

complicated grading scale. Individual students will be analyzed for growth (pre-test to post-test)

by their mean scores, and then separate analyses of variance for the various demographics and

the study class versus the control class will be conducted. This should solidly answer the second

question.

A final regression analysis will be used on individual, critical demographic, and

class mean final test scores versus the end-of-unit survey answers to see if there is a significant

correlation between student expectations and performance. This will help to fill out the

information needed for both questions.

Initial Curriculum Order 8

References

Aldrich, R. S., Trammell, B. A., Poli, S., Potter, S., & Garringer, K. (2018). How Age, Gender,

and Class Format Relate to Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions of Effective Course

Assessments. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 13, 118–129. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.wgu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1184937&site=eds-live&scope=site

Chin, D. B., Chi, M., & Schwartz, D. L. (2016). A comparison of two methods of active learning

in physics: Inventing a general solution versus compare and contrast. Instructional

Science, 44(2), 177-195. doi:10.1007/s11251-016-9374-0

Deans, K., Keller, L., Price, M., & Crouse, A. (2015). Research and Teaching: Implementing

Comprehensive Reform of Introductory Physics at a Primarily Undergraduate Institution:

A Longitudinal Case Study. Journal of College Science Teaching, 044(03).

doi:10.2505/4/jcst15_044_03_82

Ergin, S. (2016). The Effect of Group Work on Misconceptions of 9th Grade Students about

Newtons Laws. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(6), 127-136.

doi:10.11114/jets.v4i6.1390

Feldman, A., & Kropf, A. (1999). Teachers as Curriculum Decision Makers: The Selection of

Topics for High School Physics. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14(3), 241-259.

Fernandez, T., Ritchie, G., & Barker, M. (2008). A sociocultural analysis of mandated curriculum

change: The implementation of a new senior physics curriculum in New Zealand schools.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(2), 187-213. doi:10.1080/00220270701313978

Good, R. H. (1991). The undergraduate physics major. American Journal of Physics, 59(8), 680-

681. doi:10.1119/1.16769
Initial Curriculum Order 9

Hewitt, P. (2019). Focus on Physics: Quickly Teaching Speed, Velocity, and Acceleration--Part 2.

The Science Teacher, 086(07), 18-20. doi:10.2505/4/tst19_086_07_18

Huberth, M., Chen, P., Tritz, J., & Mckay, T. A. (2015). Computer-Tailored Student Support in

Introductory Physics. Plos One, 10(9). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137001

Hughes, B., Mona, L., Wilson, G., McAninch, S., Seamans, J., & Stout, H. (2017, September).

An object in motion: An integrative approach to accelerating students' interest in

Newton's Laws of Motion. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 77(1), 10-16.

Lee, H. S., & Park, J. (2013). Deductive Reasoning To Teach Newton’s Law Of Motion.

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(6), 1391-1414.

doi:10.1007/s10763-012-9386-4

Low, D., & Wilson, K. (2017). WEIGHT, THE NORMAL FORCE AND NEWTON'S THIRD

LAW: Dislodging a deeply embedded misconception. Teaching Science: The Journal of

the Australian Science Teachers Association, 63(2), 17-26.

Mulhall, P., & Gunstone, R. (2007). Views about Physics held by Physics Teachers with

Differing Approaches to Teaching Physics. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 435-

462. doi:10.1007/s11165-007-9057-6

Psycharis, S. (2016). Inquiry Based-Computational Experiment, Acquisition of Threshold

Concepts and Argumentation in Science and Mathematics Education. Journal of

Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 282-293. Retrieved from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.wgu.idm.oclc.org

Roorda, G., Vos, P., & Goedhart, M. J. (2014). An Actor-Oriented Transfer Perspective On High

School Students’ Development Of The Use Of Procedures To Solve Problems On Rate Of

Initial Curriculum Order 10

Change. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(4), 863-889.

doi:10.1007/s10763-013-9501-1

Sumrall, W., & Sumrall, K. (2018, November/December). Project- and problem-based learning

and assessment: How to go beyond the challenge. Science Scope, 42(4), 84-91.

Wild, A., Galosy, J., Kagle, M., Gillespie, N., & Rozelle, J. (2018). Teacher agency over

curriculum and professional learning: Lock-step. Journal of Professional Capital and

Community, 3(4), 306-320. doi:10.1108/jpcc-12-2017-0034

State of Science Index Survey. (2019). Retrieved August 14, 2019, from

https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/state-of-science-index-survey/

Texas, Texas Education Agency. (1997). Texas essential knowledge and skills: 19 TAC chapters

110-128 (pp. 112.38-112.39). Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

AP Physics 1: Algebra-Based: AP Central - The College Board. (2019, August 01). Retrieved

August 14, 2019, from https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-physics-1?

course=ap-physics-1-algebra-based