[LON-CAPA-cvs] cvs: modules /gerd/alt2007 graphing.bib graphing.tex
www
lon-capa-cvs@mail.lon-capa.org
Tue, 06 Mar 2007 21:47:19 -0000
This is a MIME encoded message
--www1173217639
Content-Type: text/plain
www Tue Mar 6 16:47:19 2007 EDT
Modified files:
/modules/gerd/alt2007 graphing.bib graphing.tex
Log:
Additional refs, work on a number of sections
--www1173217639
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="www-20070306164719.txt"
Index: modules/gerd/alt2007/graphing.bib
diff -u modules/gerd/alt2007/graphing.bib:1.2 modules/gerd/alt2007/graphing.bib:1.3
--- modules/gerd/alt2007/graphing.bib:1.2 Mon Feb 19 11:36:21 2007
+++ modules/gerd/alt2007/graphing.bib Tue Mar 6 16:47:16 2007
@@ -81,6 +81,15 @@
title = "Effective Feedback to the Instructor from Online Homework"
}
+@ARTICLE{clement81,
+ author = "John Clement and Jack Lochhead and George S. Monk",
+ year = "1981",
+ journal = "The American Mathematical Monthly",
+ volume = "88",
+ issue="4",
+ pages="286-290",
+ title = "Translation Difficulties in Learning Mathematics"
+}
@BOOK{mazur97,
author = "Eric Mazur",
@@ -179,6 +188,12 @@
howpublished="\url{http://www.lon-capa.org/sharedpool.html}"
}
+@MISC{msuusabilitylab,
+ author="Michigan State University Usability and Accessibility Center",
+ title="Facilities Description",
+ howpublished="\url{http://usability.msu.edu/facilities\_desc.asp}"
+}
+
@MISC{mpexwarning,
title="Using The Maryland Physics Expectations Survey",
howpublished="\url{http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/expects/usempex.htm}"
@@ -295,7 +310,7 @@
}
@MISC{fci,
- author = "Ibrahim Halloun and Rchard R. Hake and E. P. Mosca and David Hestenes",
+ author = "Ibrahim Halloun and Richard R. Hake and E. P. Mosca and David Hestenes",
howpublished= "\url{http://modeling.la.asu.edu/R\&E/Research.html}",
title = "Force Concept Inventory"
}
Index: modules/gerd/alt2007/graphing.tex
diff -u modules/gerd/alt2007/graphing.tex:1.2 modules/gerd/alt2007/graphing.tex:1.3
--- modules/gerd/alt2007/graphing.tex:1.2 Mon Feb 19 11:36:21 2007
+++ modules/gerd/alt2007/graphing.tex Tue Mar 6 16:47:16 2007
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
\section{Introduction}
The ability to work with graphs is a basic skill of any scientist. When scientists are discussing concepts and phenomena, they quickly resort to sketches of one variable versus another, sometimes just three lines on a paper: two axes and a graph. But how often do we intentionally teach our students about this important representation format?
-Even with the relatively simple concept of position, velocity, and acceleration, students have unexpected difficulties translating between graphical representations and both the mathematical representation and the ``real world.''~\cite{mcdermott,beichner,meltzer05}. These difficulties can sometimes have subtle reasons that lead to cognitive disconnects: for example, using a graph showing the position of a bouncing ball versus time, Ferrara~\cite{ferrara} found that even the sign, i.e., measuring the distance from the ground versus from the launch points, can make a large difference. Students might misinterpret a graph as a pictorial representation of a situation~\cite{elby00}, mix up what is on the axes, or become confused when approximating the slope of a graph that does not start at the origin~\cite{beichner}. Students need practice both interpreting and generating these graphs, but appropriate formative assessment frequently does not happen in the typically large enrollment introductory courses due to scalability problems: there are simply not enough teaching assistants to give the students appropriate feedback on these complex tasks.
+Even with the relatively simple concept of position, velocity, and acceleration, students have unexpected difficulties translating between graphical representations and both the mathematical representation and the ``real world.''~\cite{mcdermott,beichner,meltzer05,clement81}. These difficulties can sometimes have subtle reasons that lead to cognitive disconnects: for example, using a graph showing the position of a bouncing ball versus time, Ferrara~\cite{ferrara} found that even the sign, i.e., measuring the distance from the ground versus from the launch points, can make a large difference. Students might misinterpret a graph as a pictorial representation of a situation~\cite{elby00}, mix up what is on the axes, or become confused when approximating the slope of a graph that does not start at the origin~\cite{beichner}. Students need practice both interpreting and generating these graphs, but appropriate formative assessment frequently does not happen in the typically large enrollment introductory courses due to scalability problems: there are simply not enough teaching assistants to give the students appropriate feedback on these complex tasks.
Only too often, problems given in physics courses focus on numerical calculations, e.g., ``A car accelerates from rest with $2 m/s^2$ for 10 seconds, what is the distance covered?'' -- students can ``solve'' these problems without any understanding of the underlying concepts~\cite{lin,heuvelen}. The sketching of graphs is an example of a more constructivist approach to teaching these concepts. The students need to make a number of decisions:
\begin{itemize}
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@
\item exact position of axis intercepts, minima and maxima
\end{itemize}
Which features to which degree are significant depends on the problem posed. For example, for the acceleration problem in section~\ref{accproblem} the exact shape of the graph is irrelevant, as long as the graph starts with zero and ends with zero, and is positive for a finite time in-between. In the potential versus field problem~\ref{potproblem} on the other hand, the asymptotic behavior at certain positions and the position of crossing axes is important.
-\subsection{Rules}
+\subsection{Rules}\label{rules}
Rather than constructing the graph using B\'ezier curves and checking if the parameters are within acceptable tolerance~\cite{kennedy04}, we propose to evaluate the graphs using rule sets for the function itself and its derivatives. Figures~\ref{accrule} and \ref{potrule} shows examples of what these rules might look like.
\begin{figure}\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|}\hline
@@ -210,18 +210,53 @@
\end{tabular}
\caption{Server-side processing of sketches\label{processing}}
\end{figure}
+\subsection{Authoring}
+Authoring an appropriate rule set is likely going to be a task that is perceived by the average faculty author as too complex. We are thus going to implement two sets of tools to facilitate authoring:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Templates: we will provide templates for functions that frequently appear in physics, mathematics, and engineering, such as linear, quadratic, exponential, logarithmic, sinusoidal, etc. As in other parts of the LON-CAPA problem editor, authors can start from these templates and adapt them to their particular situation.
+\item Graph-based rule editor: in this editor mode, the author will be asked to provide a number of correct graph responses. The system will then propose a rule set which the author can adapt.
+\end{itemize}
+An even harder task may be the determination of the appropriate fuzziness. To this end, after the specification of the rule set, the author will be asked to provide a number of correct sketches for different randomizations of the problem. The system will then either determine the appropriate fuzziness or reject the rule set, in which case the author will be asked to modify it.
+\subsection{Refining the Rule Set}
+LON-CAPA has a built-in feedback system. When a student sends a message using this system, faculty is provided with complete contextual information, i.e., the version of the problem that the student had, and his or her previous attempts~\cite{kortemeyer05feedback}. As students are working on problems, they frequently contact instructors with questions why their solution is wrong, and at times, errors in problems get detected this way. In such cases, the instructor can manually give credit and notify the author. We will enhance this author feedback loop such that student solutions can be used to adjust the rule set or fuzziness of problems.
\section{Tool Development}
+Most of the infrastructure for the sketching tool is already in place, including all of the content and course management features. We will need to develop a client-side tool that can take the graph input and the server-side functionality that is to be used to author and evaluate the rule sets.
+
+For the client-side functionality, different technologies such as Java applets in connection with CGI-submissions or servlet communication, or Adobe Flash (for example in connection with red5), will be tested to maximize platform compatibility and bandwidth efficiency.
+
\section{Usability Testing}
-\subsection{Authoring Interface}
-The ease of authoring is crucial for the widespread adoption of the tool, and has been one of the limiting factors to the dissemination of the original Interactive Graphing Tool.~\cite{kennedy04}.
-\subsection{Learner Interface}
+The ease of authoring is crucial for the widespread adoption of the tool, and has been one of the limiting factors to the dissemination of the original Interactive Graphing Tool.~\cite{kennedy04}. The same is true for the student interface: a tool which students cannot use is likely not going to find wide adaption by instructors. In order to ensure that the graphing tool meets user expectations and that the interaction between the system and the user is optimized, user-centered design methodologies should be incorporated into the product development process. User-centered design means that products are developed such that they are easy, effective, accessible, and enjoyable to use from the {\it userÕs} perspective, supporting the tasks that they are trying to accomplish. We propose that conducting a usability evaluation (with representative end users) and a web accessibility evaluation will significantly enhance the toolÕs usability, thereby resulting in a more successful, usable, enjoyable product.
+\subsection{Testing Facility}
+The usability evaluation and/or usability focus group would be conducted at the MSU Usability \& Accessibility Center. The facility is equipped with Internet connectivity and video recording equipment, operated from a separate control room. The facility enables both the recording of one-on-one usability sessions and/or focus groups, as well as their live observation from a separate area~\cite{msuusabilitylab}.
+\subsection{Usability Evaluation}
+Usability specialists will conduct two usability evaluations: Faculty user group, consisting of 10 representative faculty members, and a Student user group comprised of 10 representative college students. The goal of the user experience testing is to assess the degree to which the product matches the way that they expect to interact with the graphing tool based on their background and experience. This study would involve conducting one-on-one user experience sessions lasting 1-1/2 hours each. Additionally, the session will consist of users performing 5-6 task scenarios that concentrate on the core functionality of the product. For the Faculty group, the tasks will include general problem editing, specifying which characteristics of the graphs are important, using the tool to test problems, and working with student results. The tasks for the Student group will concentrate on inputting their graphs, making corrections to graphs, and the quality of the feedback by the system. Key usability goals would include effectiveness, which refers to how well a system does what it is supposed to do (measures: percentage of tasks completed successfully; number and types of errors); efficiency, or the way a system supports users in carrying out their tasks (measure: time to perform a particular task successfully); and satisfaction which relates to the subjective responses users have to the system (measures: user satisfaction ratings; verbal and written feedback). This usability evaluation will save time and reduce development costs by anticipating user expectations and reactions before the product design or redesign is finalized. We will produce detailed usability report with actionable recommendations.
+\subsection{Web Accessibility Compliance Inspection}
+Accessibility experts will evaluate the graphing tool and identify the improvements needed to ensure legal compliance with Section 508 standards. Coding the tool with accessibility design principles in mind will enhance the user experience of customers who use assistive technology as they interact with the product, thus increasing the ability to reach and satisfy the broadest possible audience. Additionally, including common accessibility features would dramatically improve the user experience for customers using mobile phone browsers, personal digital assistants, and even low-bandwidth connections. We will provide with a detailed report outlining the accessibility standards, whether they have been met, the code examples, and other helpful information.
\section{Initial Content Development}
-\section{Analysis of Problem Solving Behavior}
-In order to evaluate the influence of this problem type on student problem solving, the associated online discussions will be analyzed. These are a rich source of information~\cite{kortemeyer05ana,kortemeyer07correl}, and it was found that different problem types lead to different student discussion behavior.
+
+
\section{Evaluation of Educational Effectiveness}
+\subsection{Assessment of the Tool as Instructional Aid}
As an instrument to evaluate the effectiveness of the online homework, we will deploy the Test of Understanding Graphs in Kinematics (TUG-K)~\cite{beichner} in consecutive semesters, both before and after introducing the problems. We will also compare scores on the Force Concept Inventory (FCI)~\cite{fci}, for which already several years of pre- and post-test scores exist for the course initially under investigation.
+\subsection{Assessment of How the Tool Influences Cognitive Processes}
+Students will be observed while working on problems, where we will compare problems that are purely numerical, problems that require formula input, and problems with graph choices, with those that use the graph sketching tool. For these observations, we have two mechanisms:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item A subset of volunteer students will be observed in the Collaborative Learning Laboratory at Michigan State University, which has 20 wireless laptop computers with built-in cameras and microphones, as well as remote-access software to capture student transactions, in addition to portable video cameras. The lab has round tables, movable chairs, and white boards, and students are encouraged to work together on problem solutions. The approach allows for in-depth study and documentation of the problem-solving process.
+\item We will also analyze the online discussions around these different problem types, which are a rich source of information~\cite{kortemeyer05ana,kortemeyer07correl}. Using the same technique, it was found that different problem types lead to different student discussion behavior.
+\end{itemize}
+
\section{Dissemination}
+The tool itself and its documentation will be included in the production version of LON-CAPA and thus become part of the regular distribution. The tool will be presented at the annual LON-CAPA conferences and included in the training workshops.
+
+Research results will be published in the standard journals, including The Physics Teacher for application studies, and the American Journal of Physics or the Physical Review ST-PER cognitive studies. Presentations will be given at the American Association of Physics Teachers conferences and associated PER conferences.
\section{Project Management}
+The primary project responsibility will be with the PI, Gerd Kortemeyer.
+
+The coding of the tool will be supervised with the LON-CAPA Technical Director, Guy Albertelli.
\section{Project Timeline}
+\subsection{Year 1}
+\subsection{Year 2}
+\subsection{Year 3}
+\pagebreak
\bibliography{graphing}
\end{document}
\ No newline at end of file
--www1173217639--