Upload

1
of 15
jpteo1(1)june02
Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,185|Likes: 11
Published by Chua Van Houten
Journal Of Physics Teacher Education, Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika
See more

J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online
1
(1), June 2002

Page 7

2002 Illinois State University Physics Dept.
administered to the students. Out of ten different instructors, four (three professors and one high school teacher)
obtained perfect pretest scores on the assessments. The remaining instructors scoredin the 40-80% range (including two Ph.D.
physicists). Post-testscores for the instructors improved to an average of 85%. Unfor-tunately this implies that some
misconceptions were probably being perpetuated. Lab instructor expertise and training is essen-tial. This is a time
consuming proposition and can be an expen-sive for schools with few resources. For example, after JVs de- parture
from CSUF to UNE the lack of a faculty proponent for modeling instruction resulted in a return to the traditional
confir-mation lab format.
Grading:
In JVs hands the traditional lab report was a learning failureat the college level. Copying of a lab partners
results/analysiswas par for the course. Reports handed in a week after lab wereno more polished than those passed in
immediately after lab. Labgrade averages were always high, in the 95% range. Student com- prehension of models
varied widely. Physical representationsdeveloped in lab are so important for effective deployment of
themathematical models JV needed to find a better learning tool. Hehas since swapped the graded lab report for
weekly half hour labquizzes. The quiz content focused on review and application of the previous weeks lab results
obtained through class consensus.The importance of the latter cannot be understated. Class consen-sus allowed his
students to take ownership of the knowledge theywere constructing. The weekly quizzes also provided an impor-tant
incentive to keep the students abreast of the models.
Depth vs. Breadth:
After this study was completed JV had the luxury of aban-doning all pretense of covering the traditional first
semester gen-eral physics content at UNE, as there were no articulation restric-tions. JV concentrated on depth of
conceptual comprehension,covering only mechanics in the first semester. Students standard-ized assessments have been steadily
improving. A legitimate con-cern raised by this emphasis is that improvement on mechanicsassessments is to be
expected from a reduction of content. JV believes this concern is unfounded for two reasons. His studentsspend the
extra time developing process and communication skills,not merely more exposure to demonstrations or similar problems.Hi s
s t u d e n t s c o mmuni c a t e t he i r mo de l s t hr o u g h f o r ma t i ve whiteboard assessments, in class peer
instruction, and laboratorydeployment activities.The outcomes from this study at two universities indicatethat
modeling instruction significantly improved student compre-hension in mechanics, without expense of content,
based on es-tablished standardized assessments. Importantly, this improve-ment appeared to be independent of
student demographics, classsize, or the instructor. Instructional training and use of the model-ing approach appeared
to have the greatest influence on studentlearning. Lastly, it was possible to provide lab instructors with
anexperiential learning environment to learn and do modelinginstruction simultaneously.
Acknowledgments:
The authors would like to thank the Center for Enhancementof Teaching and Learning, the faculty from the CSUF
PhysicsDepartment, and NSF grant DUE9952668.
References:
1. Malcolm Wells, David Hestenes, & David Swackhamer, 1995,A modeling method for high school physics instruction.Am.
J. Phys. 63 (7), 606-619.2. Arnold B. Arons, 1997, Teaching Introductory Physics, JohnWiley and Sons.3. Richard
R. Hake, 1992, Socratic Pedagogy in the Introduc-tory Physics Laboratory, The Physics Teacher 30 (12), 546-
552.4. Hestenes Lectures: http://faculty.une.edu/cas/jvesenka/mod-eling/indeces/readings.htm5. Eric Mazur, 1997,
Peer Instruction, a Users Manual, PrenticeHall.6. W. J. Gerace, W.J. Leonard, P. P. Mestre, and L. Wenk, 1996,Classtalk: A
classroom communication system for activelearning, J. Computing in Higher Ed. 7(2), 3-47.7. Normalized gain =
(FCI Post Test% - FCI Pre Test %)/(100%- FCI Pre Test %)8. David Hestenes, Malcolm Wells, and Gregg
Swackhamer,1992, Force Concept Inventory, The Physics Teacher 30(3), 141-151.9. Richard Hake, 1998,
Interactive-engagement vs traditionalmethods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics testdata for
introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64-74.10. Ibid.11. http://modeling.asu.edu12. Randall Knight, 1997,
Physics, a contemporary Perspec-tive. Used with permission from Addison Wesley.13. Richard Hakes web site:
http://carini.physics.indiana.edu/SDI/14. Lillian C. McDermott, Physics by Inquiry, John Wiley &Sons, Inc.,
(1996).15. Revised 1995 version (30 questions).16. Robert J. Beichner, 1994, Test of Understanding Graphs
inKinematics. Am. J. Phys. 62 (8), 750-755.17. David Hestenes & Malcolm Wells, A Mechanics BaselineTest. The
Physics Teacher, 30 (3), 159-162.18. Priscilla Laws, A New Order for Mechanics, J. Wilson ed.,Proceedings on
Conference for Introductory Physics Course,(Wiley, 1997), p. 360.19. Richard Hake, personal communication. He
recommendsmaking the post-FCI worth between 1 and 2% of the studentsfinal grade.20. Chance Hoellworth, Assessment of
Traditional and StudioStyle Instruction Methods., AAPT Announcer, 28 (4), 90(1998). Page 1

J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online
1
(1), June 2002

Page 8

2002 Illinois State University Physics Dept.
The Secondary School Enhancement Program in Physics at Kenyon College
Thomas B. Greenslade, Jr.Department of PhysicsKenyon College, Gambier, Ohio 43022E-Mail:
greenslade@kenyon.eduThis is a report on an intensive summer program at Kenyon College for high school
teachers funded during the decade of the nineteen nineties by the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes (HHMI). The
intensity of the work and the technology of the program were its distinguishing characteristics. Let me tell you its
story.
Organizing the Program:
Kenyon College is a purely liberal arts college with notradition of teacher preparation. We have
considerable strengthin physics, with five faculty members and seven to eight majorsgraduating each year. Some of
our physics graduates go on toteach at the secondary level, but almost all of them are in theindependent schools.
There was no local expertise for organizingand setting goals for the Howard Hughes program.Therefore, I called on
four experienced high school physicsteachers in the summer of 1988 to help define the program. Mark Carle of
University School in Cleveland was a former presidentof the Ohio Section of the American Association of
PhysicsTeachers, and my colleague in a joint physics course taught athis school.
1
Judith Doyle was the physics teacher at Newark HighSchool in Newark Ohio. She had a Ph.D. in chemistry, and
was both an experienced teacher and the leader of many workshopsfor high school science teachers. William Reitz,
now at Hoover Hi gh Sc hoo l i n Nor t h Ca n t o n , Oh i o , f o r me r Oh i o Se c t i o n president, was an
expert in the use of computers in the laboratory,and an ace demonstrator. Many of us have seen him with
GeneEaster at AAPT meetings, doing demonstrations in their beanieswith propellers on top! Richard Zitto, now at
Youngstown StateUniversity, but then at Boardman High School in Ohio, was aconvener of the Youngstown Area
Physics Alliance, and a thirdformer president of the Ohio Section.This group knew the nuances of teaching physics
in the highschools that were not apparent to me. We met for several days,and produced the following operating
principles for the program:1. We would have only ten teachers for a four- week summer s e s s i o n , t h u s
a l l o wi n g u s t o wo r k c l o s e l y wi t h t h e m a s individuals.2. The teachers would be awarded four
hours of graduatecredit.3. We would provide room and board, travel expenses, anda stipend of $1000 for the four
weeks.4. In general, the mornings would be devoted to lecture,demonstration and discussion, and the afternoons to
experimenta n d c o ns t r uc t i o n. I wo ul d g i ve t h e l e c t ur e s , a nd my f o u r colleagues, each of whom
came for one week, would overseethe afternoon program.5. The working assumption was that the teachers
wereexperienced in course and classroom management, but neededsome help to bring their courses up to standard.
This resulted inthe name
Secondary School Enhancement Program in Physics
.As we will see, this hypothesis required some stretching in actual practice.We had available a sum of $100,000
from a Howard Hughesgrant (plus another $12,000 from other sources) for the summersof 1989, 1990, 1991 and
1992. A second HHMI grant provided$72,000 for the summers of 1999 and 2000, when considerabletechnology was
added to the program.
The Teachers:
Averaging over teachers is tricky, but the hypothetical typicalteacher was from a small city or large town with one or two
highschools, was the only physics teacher in the school, taught one or two sections of physics, had one to two years
of courses in physicsat a public institution, and had been teaching for ten years. Therewere 18 women and 43 men.
Figure 1 shows teachers from WestVirginia and Ohio locating their home schools.There were, of course, some
exceptions. Three physics major graduates of Kenyon and one of Denison University, with zeroor little teaching
experience, went through the program. Theexperienced high school teachers took them under the
proverbialwing, and taught them the realities of secondary school teaching.In another case, one experienced
teacher spent the eveningsFig. 1.
Teachers from West Virginia and Ohio locating their home schools on maps in the lounge.


J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online
1
(1), June 2002

Page 9

2002 Illinois State University Physics Dept.
mentoring another teacher who was coming into physics teachingafter teaching music for many years.On the other
hand, we had a couple of teachers who had been full undergraduate physics majors a number of years ago,and
needed a refresher course. The most extreme case was ateacher from the Sand Hills region of Nebraska who taught
sixclasses and all of the science courses in his small high school, but had never taken a college physics course.The
teachers spent their coffee breaks during the first fewdays discussing their schools, telling battle stories and
discussing(and damning) administration policies. Pretty soon this died awayand the discussions reverted to physics
and physics teaching.Few of the teachers had ever been in contact with other physicsteachers for a lengthy period of time,
and they had a lot of catchingup to do. Many of the teachers belonged to the National ScienceTeachers Association, but
few were members of the AmericanAs s o c i a t i o n o f Phys i c s Te a c h e r s . Fo r t he f i r s t f o u r ye a r s
I provided a one year membership to the AAPT with a subscriptionto
The Physics Teacher
.H o w e v e r , a l l o f t h e m h a d d e v e l o p e d i n t e r e s t i n g demonstrations,
experiments and approaches to the teaching of physics. We tapped this lode of information by asking the teachersto give short
talks, which they seemed eager to do after gettingover the initial embarrassment of making presentations to
their peers. A good example was the talk about bridge-building conteststhat had served as a focal point for the year at a small,
ruralschool in northeastern Ohio. Figure 2 shows Sr. Irene Gerdemandemonstrating the proper technique for pulling
a tablecloth outfrom under a plate.Over the course of the programs I took hundreds of black a n d wh i t e 3 5
mm p h o t o g r a p h s , a n d s p e n t
m a n y w e e k e n d s developing film and printing
pictures toh a n d o u t t o t h e teachers on Mondaymorning. Copies of t h e p i c t u r e s f r o mthe current
year ands e l e c t e d p i c t u r e s from previous yearswere pinned up on alarge bulletin boardo u t s i d e
o f t h e classroom that wasthe teachers loungeduring the summer sessions. This roomheld the coffee pot, back
copies of
The P h y s i c s T e a c h e r
,and copies of the labhandouts and other materials developed by the teachers for their own classes.
The Formal Lectures:
The text for the course was Franklin Miller,
College Physics
,fifth edition. This well-respected text, on the algebra-based level,was chosen because of the style of its writing. At
Kenyon wehave found that some students taking the calculus-level course borrow copies of Miller because it is so
well written. In someyears regular homework problems were assigned and discussedin class the next day.The overall
schedule for the year 2000 course is given inTable I. We decided to start with mechanics because the basictopics
were familiar, allowing us to bring in new treatments withlittle pain. For example, I discussed a new analytical
method byZebrowski
2
of deriving the equation for centripetal acceleration.When discussing kinematics, there was a good deal of
emphasis placed on learning the various graphical signatures of uniformand uniformly accelerated motion. At this
point in the course Ioften stopped to ask how the participants taught a particular topic,and this usually led to useful
discussions. We noticed that manyof the teachers spent enormous amounts of time on mechanics intheir own
classes, teaching and reteaching it until the studentsgot it right.Although the structure and pace of the lectures was
that of acollege-level course, it was made clear that we did not think thatthe secondary school course should
necessarily follow the leadof the college course. Indeed, we touched a number of times onthe differences of the two
courses, with the high school courselooking at phenomena and developing techniques for describingthem.A certain
amount of history of science crept into the lectures, based on my own interests. Unlike undergraduate students,
whowant you to give them the answers to the questions on the MCATexams, the teachers quite liked this material, and enjoyed
a lectureon the history of photography that had a good deal of opticsconcealed in it.Fig. 2.
Sr. Irene Gerdeman demonstrating t h e p r o p e r t e c h n i q u e o f p u l l i n g a tablecloth out
from under a plate.
Fig. 3.
Dick Zitto showing his nail balancer to Sr. Irene Gerdeman.


J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online
1
(1), June 2002

Page 10

2002 Illinois State University Physics Dept.
Certain topics were taught that were unlikely to be useddirectly in the high school physics course. An example was
theBohr model of the atom, starting with Bohrs postulates andending with the equation for the wavelength of the
spectral linesfor hydrogen. Quite a number of the teachers told me that theyhad never seen this worked through,
even though they taught theBohr atom in their chemistry course (most of them also
taughtchemistry).Accompanying the lectures were many demonstrations, using simple apparatus and
human kinetics whenever possible.Di c k Zi t t o ( Fi g. 3 ) h a d a n e n g a g i n g s e t o f c e nt e r o f
ma s s demonstrations, and I did realistic mimings of a weight lifter and a tightrope walker in action. We welcomed
demonstrations brought in by the teachers, and used these as springboards for discussions of how to use
demonstrations in the classroom. Ins o me ye a r s we g a ve t h e t e a c he r s c o p i e s o f
Demonstration E x p e r i me n t s i n P h y s i c s
b y G e o r g e F r e i e r
3
a n d d i s c u s s e d experiments from the book.The one thing that the teachers wanted nothing of was
formaleducation material. Our one attempt to get an expert to talk aboutassessment was unsuccessful; the
material was fine, but theteachers wanted physics, not education. We also met defeat onthe subject of
programming in BASIC; the staff thought that thiswas a useful exercise and the participants did not.On the last
day Mark Carle gave a splendid lecture onquantum ideas that served to tie together the ideas we had
talkeda b o u t f o r a m o n t h . W i s e l y , I p l a n n e d n o t h i n g a f t e r h i s presentation.
Experiments:
As soon as a piece of apparatus was built, it was used in anexperiment, and the teachers were asked to write
laboratory notesfor it in language that was appropriate for their students. Thesenotes were then distributed to the
group. The idea was that thehard-worked teachers should be able to put into use at once a piece of apparatus that
they built, and with their own laboratorynotes, thus breaking the cycle of I dont have time to find/set upthe
apparatus and find/write the laboratory notes that is a real problem for many of them.For the first four years we
designed a number of experimentsaround the use of Apple II+ computers, mostly using Vernier Software for the
control of photogates using the Precision Timer system. Vernier also supplied the kits (at cost) for the
photogatesystems that the teachers put together. During the course of the program we taught a lot of people how to
solder an electricalconnection! We also used the Vernier Software Ray Tracking program when studying optics.In
the last two years of the program we turned away fromthe use of the computer for taking data, and instead turned to
thev i d e o c a m e r a a n d s t o p p e d - i m a g e p l a y b a c k o f t h e t a p e d phenomena.
Figure 4 shows a group of teachers using severalmonochrome computer monitors connected in parallel to
theoutput of a VCR elsewhere.We gave away a certain amount of computer apparatus. In1999 each teacher got a
486 computer that had been phased outof Kenyon programs. These machines were dreadfully slow, butwere just
right for data analysis using the PHYSFIT curve-fitting program that we had developed at Kenyon.
5
In earlier years, Iwas able to collect and pass on several Apple II+ computers,again for data analysis.At one point, I
realized that although the teachers could setup problems on the blackboard with series and parallel directcurrent
circuits, they were not skilled at setting up the actualcircuits. Therefore, we added an exploratory experiment to
givethem experience in such topics as where do I put the ammeter in the circuits that their students also have
trouble with. Thise xp e r i me nt t he n ma d e i t b a c k i n t o t h e s e t o f i n t r o d u c t o r y laboratory
experiments at Kenyon, from which it had beenremoved a number of years before because we thought that
itwas too simple. There were several experiments that showed phenomena on a sophisticated level. Most of these
were designedt o gi ve t he t e a c he r s s o me b a c k gr o u n d i n mo d e r n p h ys i c s , including the Millikan
oil drop experiment to measure the chargeon the electron, the charge to mass ratio of the electron and
the photoelectric effect. Kenyon has a 5 curie neutron source, andwe irradiated silver foils and made a videotape of
the front of aGeiger counter (along with a clock) so that the half life of theactivated silver (about 2.3 minutes) could
be found. The teacherstook home this tape so that students could do, at least vicariously,an experiment rarely done
even by college undergraduates. Thistape also included phenomena to be investigated later using thestop-action
function of the VCR.A very popular experiment in the last week of the coursewas the production of a single beam
hologram; the commoncomment was that it looked so hard and was actually so easy. Wedid not leave this only as an
experiment, however the teachersalso had a lecture by Mark Carle on the theory of the hologram.Another popular
experiment was the use of a century-old 5x7view camera to make negatives on photographic paper insteadFig. 4.
A group of teachers using several monochrome computer monitors connected in parallel to the output of a VCR to
analyzemotion.


J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online
1
(1), June 2002

Page 11

2002 Illinois State University Physics Dept.
of film, which were then used to produce positives by contact printing
6
.Judy Doyle was good at presenting AAPT workshops, andwe included three of them in the program: electrostatics,
dataa c q u i s i t i o n w i t h p r o g r a m m a b l e c a l c u l a t o r s a n d s t u d e n t confidence in
physics. The latter had me a bit nervous, as itincluded a video of really terrible examples of teaching; I keptwondering
if I had ever done anything quite that bad. The teacherscaught hold of the ideas, and always had a good discussion of practical
teaching techniques. Figure 5 shows Judy demonstratingthe fine points of programmable calculator use.Du r i n g f i ne
e v e n i n g s my c o l l e a gue , Pa ul a Tur n e r , ha d viewing sessions at the Franklin Miller
Observatory on theKenyon Campus through a fourteen inch telescope.
Construction of Apparatus:
F o r m a n y t e a c h e r s t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f apparatus was theh i g h p o i nt o f
t h e c o u r s e . W e r e c o g n i z e d t h a t most teachers wereoverburdened with p r e p a r a t i o n s
a n d c l a s s e s , a n d h a d l i t t l e t i m e o r experience to makeapparatus. On theother hand, few
of them had budgetsl a r g e e n o u g h t o b u y a p p a r a t u s , even in groups of one.M o s t
o f t h e apparatus we builtw a s f o r demonstrating ando b s e r v i n g t h e phenomena of mechanics.
The two large projects that drew themost attention were the Giant Air Pucks and the Air Tracks. InFigure 6,
Kathryn Cole and her hovercraft formed a nearlyisolated system that reacted to the inversion of a spinning
bicycle-wheel gyroscope
7
. Assembly-line techniques were used to cutout the disks, sand the edges, fasten on the baggy bottom sheet(held in
the middle with a big thin plywood washer) and cut theholes in them. Bill Reitz told us about the air pucks in 1988,
butclearly they have been in use before that time. For many teachers,male and female, this was the first time they
had used hand and power tools.The air track was the Woodrow Wilson style, based on adesign used in summer
programs at Princeton. It is a six-footlength of square plastic down-spouting with #60 holes drilled onMon 6/26
Check in. Class and lab on 1-D kinematicsusing video systemsTue 6/27 Class and lab on 2-D kinematics using
videoand film systemsWed 6/28 Class on linear dynamics & energy. Air track constructionThu 6/29 Class and
experiments on linear dynamics &energy. Make air pucksFri 6/30 Class and experiment on momentum, center of
mass, energyMon 7/3 Class and experiment on rotational kinematicsand dynamicsTue 7/4 Class on rotational
dynamics. Parade. Makeultrasonic apparatusWed 7/5 Class and experiment on SHM and oscillations.Speed of sound exptThu
7/6 Class and experiment on waves. UltrasonicinterferometersFri 7/7 Class on acoustics and music.Mon 7/10
Classes on electrostatics and electrostaticsworkshopT u e 7 / 1 1 C l a s s a n d e x p e r i me n t s o n d i r e c t
c u r r e n t experimentsW e d 7 / 1 2 E l e c t r i c f i e l d s a n d e l e c t r o n
b a l l i s t i c s . Exponential decay experimentsThu 7/13 Class on magnetic fields. Student ConfidenceWorkshopFri
7/14 Class on magnetic fields. Charge and mass of the electronMon 7/17 Class and experiment with optics. RC
decaywith oscilloscopeTue 7/18 Class and experiment with opticsWed 7/19 Class and experiment on wave optics.
Decayof radioactive silver Thu 7/20 Class and experiment on the Bohr atom. HolographyFri 7/21 Class on
modern physics and applied opticsTable 1.
This is the schedule for the program held during June and July 2000. Note the Parade on July 4
th
whenwe all went to see the Gambier Fourth of July Parade,including a performance by the Gambier Mime School.
Fig. 5.
Carrie Baker and Steve Sparks being shown the fine points of programmablecalculator use by Judy Doyle.


J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online
1
(1), June 2002

Page 12

2002 Illinois State University Physics Dept.
both upper sides down its length. The pucks were lengths of aluminum angle. Again, mass-production techniques
were usedto build the tracks efficientlyO n e o f t h e mo s t p o p u l a r p r o j e c t s w a s t h e s e t o f
t wo seemingly-identical moment of inertia batons that each teacher built. These were made of plastic pipe, with
one baton evenlyloaded at the ends and the other loaded at the center. Whengrasped at the center and
rotated, their response was dramaticallydifferent.Another interesting construction project, at least among
theOhioans, was gluing a road map of Ohio onto a foam-board backing, cutting it out, and finding the center of mass
of the state(Centerburg!) by suspending the state from Toledo, Youngstownand Cincinnati.
Technology:
The budget was increased considerably in the last two yearsof the program to allow the introduction of more
technology.T h e t e a c h e r s w e r e s u p p l i e d w i t h a 2 0 M H z d u a l b e a m oscilloscope,
a function generator (sine, square, sawtooth waves)with a digital readout, a He-Ne laser, a low voltage power
supplyand a reasonably good multimeter. They built sets of three ultrasonic transducers operating at 40
KHz, and learned to do anumber of experiments with them, using the function generator as a driver and the
oscilloscope as an output device.
8
I included athorough discussion of one of my favorite topics, Lissajous figures, and the students learned
how to create them with theoscilloscope and function generator.The function generator was used to generate square
waves,which were then used to charge a capacitor, with the resultingdecay being observed on an oscilloscope. This
experiment servedas an introduction to the mathematics of exponential decay thatwas encountered later in the silver
decay experiment.
Successes:
The course had several surprising outcomes. One teacher from the first year brought his knowledge of physics up to
the point that he is now teaching a Kenyon-sponsored, non-calculus-level physics course in his school in the
Cleveland area. Thestudents get Kenyon transfer credit, and also do quite well in theAdvanced Placement
examinations. A second teacher, originallytrained in biology, used the experience from the HHMI programto write a
successful NSF-sponsored proposal to teach scienceto elementary and middle school teachers in her medium-
sizedOhio city over a four year span in the mid-nineties. And, shehired Greenslade and Zitto to teach the physics
segment of the pr o gr a m! Ano t he r t e a c h e r f r o m t h e f a r Mi d we s t s t a r t e d a university summer
course based on the HHMI model.An unexpected success was the marriage of t wo of the participants two
years after the summer program. I felt like afairy godfather when I went to the wedding.
References:
1. Mark A. Carle and Thomas B. Greenslade, Jr., A Model for School-College Cooperation,
Phys. Teach., 21,
569-572(1983)2. Ernest Zebrowski, Jr., On the Derivation of the CentripetalAcceleration Formula,
Phys. Teach., 10,
527-528 (1972)3. G. D. Freier and F. J. Anderson,
A Demonstration Handbook for Physics
(American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD)4 . T h o ma s B . G r e e n s l a d e , e t
a l . , A d d i n g E y e s t o Y o u r Computer,
Phys. Teach., 35,
22-26 (1997)5. Ref. 46. Thomas B. Greenslade, Jr., Photography in the Classroom,
Phys. Teach., 28,
148-154 (1990)7 . T h o m a s B . G r e e n s l a d e , J r . , G y r o s c o p i c C o n t r o l
o f Hovercraft,
Phys. Teach., 31
, 4-5 (1993)8. Thomas B. Greenslade, Jr., Experiments with UltrasonicTransducers,
Phys. Teach., 32,
392-398 (1994)Fig. 6.
Kathryn Cole and her hovercraft formed a nearly isolated system that reacted to the inversion of a spinning bicycle-
wheel gyroscope.
6
J P T E O J P T E O



J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online, 6
(2), Summer 2011 Page 28 2011 Illinois State University Physics Dept.

V i b r a t i n g C o l u m n s o f A i r
Discovery Learning:
Students are provided with bottles filled with differentamounts of water, and asked to
producesound by blowing across the mouths of the bottles. Students work out the conceptthat the
shorter the column of vibratingair, the higher the pitch of the soundgenerated. Students speculate
as thesource of the sound.
Interactive Demonstration:
Students are introduced to variousslider toy instruments or various brass and woodwind
instrumentsand relate lengths over variousopen-ended air columns to thefrequencies produced.
Studentscompare and contrast the lengthsof oscillating air columns andvibrating stings to see the
parallels between propagation of oscillations and vibrations.Students use open-ended PVC pipes
to play music by rapping pipes on palms of their hands.
Inquiry Lesson
: Tuning fork heldover top of an open-ended PVC pipewith one end immersed in water isused to
show resonance phenomena.Students investigate ways to representthe motion of gas particles
for standing waves in pipes. This is, theydevelop waveform representations.
Inquiry Lab:
Students use knowledge of waveform representations and anexperimental setup consisting of
tuningfork (of known frequency) and PVC pipe(open ends on tube with one endimmersed in
water) to find resonance points to determine the speed of sound inair. Speed of sound in air is
derived fromthe relationship


f
=
v
.

P r o j e c t i l e M o t i o n
Discovery Learning:
Students conduct a ball toss to determine qualitativerelationships between of initial
velocity(speed and angle) and the trajectory of the ball. (It is assumed here that studentsalready
have an understanding of kinematic relationships.)
Interactive Demonstration:
Teacher demonstrates that motionin vertical and horizontaldimensions is independent with
theuse of a dual ball (projectile andfree-fall) motion demonstration.Teacher demonstrates that the
timeup equals the time down. Using alaunch mechanism that can provideconsistent angles and
launchspeeds, students determine angle(s)that produces the greatest range of the projectile.
Inquiry Lesson
: Using a launchmechanism that can provide consistentangles and launch speeds,
qualitativerelationships between time of flightand maximum altitude are determined based on
vertical launch angle andspeed. Teacher works with students tocollect data and see that two
differentlaunch angles can be used with thesame initial speed to achieve the samerange (force of
friction assumed to be0).
Inquiry Lab:
Students use their knowledge of kinematic equations invertical and horizontal dimensions
to predict the trajectory of a projectile giveninitial conditions including speed, la non-zero launch
angle, and height differential between launcher and target. Beforestudents conduct an
experimentaldetermination, they independentlydevelop the traditional range equation.This is,
R
=
v
2
g
sin(2

)
where
v
and
g
aregiven.



J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online, 6
(2), Summer 2011 Page 29 2011 Illinois State University Physics Dept.

T h i n L e n s F o r m u l a
Discovery Learning:
Students areintroduced to a variety of convex lenses.Students note differences in thicknesses
atthe centers with respect to the edges.Students use lenses of different focallengths as hand
magnifiers. Students aredirected to examine objects at the samedistance with different hand
magnifiersand to determine any differences. Themajor difference will be magnification;some
lenses will greatly enlarge whileothers will enlarge things less. Studentsare instructed in the
process of determining focal lengths of lenses using brightly lit objects at a distance. Studentsare
asked to relate focal lengths to relativemagnifying powers of the lenses. NB.Students find the
magnification appears to be inversely proportional to the focallengths of the lenses.
Interactive Demonstration:
Theteacher uses a convex lens to project brightly lit distant objectsonto a view screen. This is
donewith a variety of different focallength lenses. Students see thatlonger focal length lenses
producelarger (but dimmer) images. Thatis, some lenses are stronger andsome lenses are
weaker. WithSocratic questioning, studentsderive the principle thatmagnification seems to
beinversely proportional to focallength. This will be tested duringthe follow-up inquiry lesson.
Inquiry Lesson:
The principlederived during the interactivedemonstration can be evaluatedmathematically. Using
a think aloud protocol and Socratic questioning, theteacher gets the students to measurethe size
of a standard object in a projected image and graph it relativeto focal length. The students
developan inverse relationship between imagesize and focal length of the lens. Theinstructor
then introduces the conceptof the diopter (D = 1/f where f isexpressed in meters; e.g., a 20cm
focallength lens (0.2m) is equivalent to D =+5m
-1
= +5 Diopters (1/0.2). Note thata convex lens will have a negativefocal length and therefore its
strengthwell be negative, D = -3m
-1
= -3Diopters for instance).
Inquiry Lab:
Students, using an optical bench, determine the relationship between di, do, and f for a single
convexlens using diopters, D, as a unit of measure. NB: When students make agraph of D
i
versus D
o
, they get a linear relationship with a negative slope and anon-zero y intercept b. The focal
lengthof the lens is a parameter of the systemrelated to f. Replacing Di by 1/di, and Do by 1/do
and identifying b with 1/f,students will find the thin lens formula:
1
f
=
1
d
i
+
1
d
o
.While using diopters almost seems likecheating to some instructors it is highlyunlikely that
students will be able tolinearize the multiply reciprocalrelationship without using this approach.



J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online, 6
(2), Summer 2011 Page 30 2011 Illinois State University Physics Dept.

C o n v e c t i o n
Discovery Learning:
Allow studentsto experience the phenomenon of convection in air by having them placetheir
hands above a warm light bulb or candle flame.Heat a beaker full of water after sprinkling a
number of small particlesof pepper on the surface. Have thestudents note the direction of
thewaters motion. Replace the water withmilk and sprinkle powdered cocoa onthe surface. Heat
the milk slowly over a hot plate and observe what happens.Light a candle. Hold a piece of
paper above the candle but above the flame.Students will not how the rising hot air will ignite the
paper.Put vegetable oil in a pan and slowlyheat it from beneath with a flame or hot plate. Note
the convection currents.
Interactive Demonstration:
The teacher uses an aquarium to demonstrate the motionof air particles during convection. On
one endof the aquarium set up a candle. On the other end of the aquarium set up a stick of
incense.Keep the top open. The teacher asks studentsto predict what will happen if the candle
andincense are lit and the cover immediately puton top of the aquarium. After students
havewritten down their predictions (which shouldinclude direction of air flow as indicated bythe
incense), light the candle and incense andobserve the results. Address any alternativeconceptions
that become evident.Students light a candle and darken the room.Using a bright projector lamp,
shine light onthe candle onto a projection screen. In a fewmoments the shadows of rising air will
bevisible over the candle. The flame will nothave a shadow, but the air will (Schlierenimaging).
Inquiry Lesson:
The teacher initiates adiscussion about the cause of convection. Causes of convection areelicited.
Temperature difference willmost likely be the main explanation.When things get hot, they rise.
Whenthey get cool, they sink. Using thisexplanation, ask students how thisclaim might be
investigated. Using thesame aquarium as before set up a brightheat lamp over a black piece of
paper that lines the bottom of one end of thetank. Put a stick of incense at the other end. Tape
thermometers to the twoends and topside wall of the tank. Lightthe incense. Place a transparent
top onthe tank, and turn on the lamp. Havestudents note temperatures where air isascending,
moving horizontally, anddescending. Relate direction of motionto temperatures.
Inquiry Lab:
Have studentsobserve a Cartesian diver (a partially filled eye dropper in awater-filled two liter
soda bottleworks very well). Have students press the sides of the soda bottleand see what
happens to theeyedropper; have studentsrelease the sides of the bottleand see what happens to
theeyedropper.Introduce students to the conceptof density if they are not alreadyfamiliar with it.
Have themmeasure the density of objects of various materials and compareto that of water. Have
studentsrelate the density of an objectrelative to water to determine if objects of higher and
lower density sink or float.
Hypothetical Inquiry:
Have students explain the origin of the buoyant force. See Levels of inquiry: Hierarchies of
pedagogical practices and inquiry processes.
Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online,
2(3), February 2005, pp. 3-11.
http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/publication