英语论文网

s who are going to be instructed in simulated laboratory experiments are familiar of the simulation environment since they have previously instructed to test simulation tool NOVA by MEB. After the instruction of some basic concepts related with projectile motion, the simulation learning experiences will be tutored to all students in this group (see sample pictures of English version in Appendix B).

Treatment

In this study, I will examine students’ performance under three treatment conditions: (1) traditional physics laboratory work; hands-on experimentation without computer simulations, (2) physics laboratory work with computer simulations, and (3) integrated physics laboratory work with both hands-on experimentation and computer simulations.

All participating students in three treatment groups will take the projectile motion pre-test. These scores will be used to estimate the students’ previous concept knowledge before the intervention. Students in the hands-on experimentation group will apply laboratory work traditionally by using necessary equipments for projectile motion experiment. Students in the simulated laboratory group will use a projectile motion simulation which is prepared by the PhET group. Third treatment group will firstly apply hands-on laboratory experiments and then will use simulations. As a result, all treatment groups would apply similar experiments with different methods and would observe the same results.

In general, students in each group are going to be set equal opportunities to achieve the laboratory experiments. In that case, all three groups will complete the same worksheet during the application of experiments. The worksheet includes questions that want students describe the progress of experimental event and its result. So, its aim is to make students be aware of about what they are doing during laboratory work.

Instruments

Measures of student conceptual understanding in projectile motion. The Projectile Motion Concepts Test (PMCT) will be used in that study to measure of student conceptual understanding in that topic and it was developed by Dilber, Karaman, and Duzgun (2009). PMCT contains 22 multiple-choice questions. (see sample items of English version in Appendix A). Each question has five choices with one correct answer and four distracters; and also, each item measures a specific learning outcome. The reliability (alpha) estimate of 0.79 was stated for this test by Dilber et al. (2009), and this value noticeably high for both an experimental research study and a misconception test (Maloney, O’Kuma, & Hieggelke, 2001).

When I looked at the test development process according to Dilber et al. (2009), in the first step, our curriculum’s objective about the unit projectile motion were matched with the students’ misconceptions in projectile motion that was formed from the related literature (Prescott & Mitchelmore, 2005; Tao & Gunstone, 1999). Then, the test items were modified as the each item and choice would measure the students’ alternative conceptions related to projectile motion. In that case, I preferred to conduct this test since all items aim to measure only the conceptual understanding, there is no need for quantitative calculations to answer questions and in terms of subject characteristics, the mathematical skills of the students would not cre