Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

Interpretation Abilities of American and Korean Students in Kinematics Graphs

  • Published : 2005.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Line graphs are powerful tools in conveying complicated relationships and ideas because line graphs show the relationship that exists between two continuous variables. Also, line graphs can show readers the variations in variables and correlate two variables in a two dimensional space. For these reasons, line graphs have a significant role in physics, especially kinematics. To what extent are Korean college and secondary students able to understand kinematics graphs? Is there a difference between American students and Korean students in interpreting kinematics graphs? The TUG-K instrument (Test of Understanding Graphs in Kinematics) was administered to students in both countries. The results show the difference between American students and Korean students by TUG-K objective. Also, the results are discussed in terms of a graph comprehension theory.

Keywords

References

  1. Aubrecht G. & Aubrecht J. (1983). Constructing objective tests. American Journal of Physics, 51, 613 -620 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.13186
  2. Beichner, R. J. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62(8), 750-762 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17449
  3. Berg, C. A. & Phillips, D. G. (1994). An investigation of the relationship between logical thinking structures and the ability to construct and interpret line graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(4), 323-344 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310404
  4. Bertin, J. (1983). Semiology of graphics: Diagrams, networks, maps (W. J. Berg, Trans.). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press
  5. Brasell, H. M. (1990). Graphs, graphing, and graphers. In M. B. Rowe (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher (vol. 6, pp. 69-85) Washington, D. C.: National Science Teachers Association
  6. Brasseur, L. (1999). The role of experience and culture in computer graphing and graph interpretive processes. In proceedings of the 17th annual international conference on Computer documentation (New Orleans, Louisiana, 9-15)
  7. Fisher, M. A. (1992). Categorization, or schema selection in graph comprehension. Paper at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA
  8. Jones, R. W., Warner, J. W., & Fankhauser, S. G. (1999). Investigating student understanding of graphs: A successful methodology and results of a study. Paper presented at the conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston
  9. Kim, T. (2003). Interpretation processes of the information in science-related line graphs by secondary school students. Doctoral Dissertation, Korea National University of Education
  10. Kim, T. & Kim, B (2002a) Secondary students' cognitive processes for the line graph form graph components. Paper presented at the Physics Education Research of American Association of Physics Teachers, 125th
  11. Kim, T. & Kim, B. (2002b). Posing students' cognitive processes for the line graph. Oral presented at the American Association of Physics Teachers (125th), Boise
  12. Kim, T., Bae, D., & Kim, B. (2002). The relationships of graphing abilities to logical thinking and science process skills of middle school students. Journal of Korean Association of Science Education, 22, 725-739
  13. Lohse, G. L. (1993). A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 353-388 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0804_3
  14. Maichle, U. (1994). Cognitive processes in understanding line graphs. In W. Schnotz & R. W. Kulhary (Eds.), Comprehension of graphics (pp. 207-226). The Netherlands: North-Holland Elsevier Science B. V.
  15. McDermott, L. C. & Redish, E. F. (1999). 'RLPER1: Resource Letter on Physics Education Research.' Resource Letter PER-1. To be published in The American Journal of Physics
  16. McKenzie, D. & Padilla, M. (1986). The construction and validation of the testing of graphing in science (TOGS). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 571-579 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230702
  17. Padilla, M., McKenzie, D., & Shaw, E. (1986). An examination of the line graphing ability of students in grades seven through twelve. School Science and Mathematics, 86, 20-26 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1986.tb11581.x
  18. Pinker, S. (1983) Pattern perception and the comprehension of graphs. National Institute of Education, Washington, D. C., 1-46
  19. Pinker, S. (1990) A theory of graph comprehension. In R. FReedle (Ed.) Artificial intelligence and the future of testing, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  20. Pinker, S. (1991) Rules of language. Science, 253, 530-535 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1857983
  21. Rosenquist, M. L. & McDermott, L. C. (1987). A conceptual approach to teaching kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 407-415 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.15122
  22. Schnotz, W. & Kulhavy, R. W. (1994) Comprehension of Graphics. North-Holland Elsevier Science B. V. The Netherlands
  23. Shaw, E. L., Padilla, M. J., & McKenzie, D. L. (1983). An examination of the graphing abilities of students in grades seven through twelve. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas
  24. Wavering, M. J. (1989). Logical reasoning necessary to make line graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(5), 373-379 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260502
  25. Wolfson, R. & Pasachoff, J. M. (1999). Physics (3rd Ed.). Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.