Categorization of first-year university students’ interpretations of numerical linear distance-time graphs

We have investigated the various approaches taken by first-year university students (n≈550) when asked to determine the direction of motion, the constancy of speed, and a numerical value of the speed of an object at a point on a numerical linear distance-time graph. We investigated the prevalence of...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Thomas Wemyss, Paul van Kampen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: American Physical Society 2013-02-01
Series:Physical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research
Online Access:http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010107
id doaj-9f92642371b24bad880e739ce3c728fd
record_format Article
spelling doaj-9f92642371b24bad880e739ce3c728fd2020-11-25T01:33:16ZengAmerican Physical SocietyPhysical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research1554-91782013-02-019101010710.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010107Categorization of first-year university students’ interpretations of numerical linear distance-time graphsThomas WemyssPaul van KampenWe have investigated the various approaches taken by first-year university students (n≈550) when asked to determine the direction of motion, the constancy of speed, and a numerical value of the speed of an object at a point on a numerical linear distance-time graph. We investigated the prevalence of various well-known general graphing difficulties, such as graph-as-picture errors and slope-height confusion. We established that two-thirds of our students could determine the direction of motion with respect to a reference point, just under 80% could determine that the speed is constant, and just under 20% of our students could correctly determine the value of the speed; in the latter case, about half of the students divided the two coordinates. Three stable categories of correctly explaining the constancy of speed emerged from the data. We found that the reason given for determining that the speed of the object was constant did not correlate with successfully determining a value for the speed. We have established that technical difficulties such as determining the slope of any linear graph did not explain the poor performance. By comparing the answers to similar questions on water level versus time graphs, we were able to establish that context dependence and incorrect prior learning are likely to play a role. Post-test data are used to confirm the validity of the categorization and support the conclusion that being able to determine the slope of a y,x graph and having a correct qualitative understanding of a distance-time graph is not sufficient to correctly determine a value for the speed.http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010107
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Thomas Wemyss
Paul van Kampen
spellingShingle Thomas Wemyss
Paul van Kampen
Categorization of first-year university students’ interpretations of numerical linear distance-time graphs
Physical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research
author_facet Thomas Wemyss
Paul van Kampen
author_sort Thomas Wemyss
title Categorization of first-year university students’ interpretations of numerical linear distance-time graphs
title_short Categorization of first-year university students’ interpretations of numerical linear distance-time graphs
title_full Categorization of first-year university students’ interpretations of numerical linear distance-time graphs
title_fullStr Categorization of first-year university students’ interpretations of numerical linear distance-time graphs
title_full_unstemmed Categorization of first-year university students’ interpretations of numerical linear distance-time graphs
title_sort categorization of first-year university students’ interpretations of numerical linear distance-time graphs
publisher American Physical Society
series Physical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research
issn 1554-9178
publishDate 2013-02-01
description We have investigated the various approaches taken by first-year university students (n≈550) when asked to determine the direction of motion, the constancy of speed, and a numerical value of the speed of an object at a point on a numerical linear distance-time graph. We investigated the prevalence of various well-known general graphing difficulties, such as graph-as-picture errors and slope-height confusion. We established that two-thirds of our students could determine the direction of motion with respect to a reference point, just under 80% could determine that the speed is constant, and just under 20% of our students could correctly determine the value of the speed; in the latter case, about half of the students divided the two coordinates. Three stable categories of correctly explaining the constancy of speed emerged from the data. We found that the reason given for determining that the speed of the object was constant did not correlate with successfully determining a value for the speed. We have established that technical difficulties such as determining the slope of any linear graph did not explain the poor performance. By comparing the answers to similar questions on water level versus time graphs, we were able to establish that context dependence and incorrect prior learning are likely to play a role. Post-test data are used to confirm the validity of the categorization and support the conclusion that being able to determine the slope of a y,x graph and having a correct qualitative understanding of a distance-time graph is not sufficient to correctly determine a value for the speed.
url http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010107
work_keys_str_mv AT thomaswemyss categorizationoffirstyearuniversitystudentsinterpretationsofnumericallineardistancetimegraphs
AT paulvankampen categorizationoffirstyearuniversitystudentsinterpretationsofnumericallineardistancetimegraphs
_version_ 1715736000015106048