~ s :93: I «

 

..r r. .p 5‘.

 
 

' \wt. ..:.|.\I.-,I.‘\0L .

| I I It If i£lu.¢w.n...,r .' II /

a
E
5
1‘

 

 

 

 

.., a;
u #2 luwmw‘.
“fight?

(.50 .

 

.
.53.
.3 5.

“mm“
III
5.

y
)9...

s.
. .9
. I. a t. .2
. 1.1% .u -
.. v. h. J g
.u w“... :11. .Vx
Iflitiii . 1
. Eur: . . I!
11.

{WM—up.
.11....

.:.
u“.

“an“.
2

kWh” 3.5
2 in ..

.“.¢ 3..
5.. 34-24.“.

a
wail
{$5.1 Am?
3 1. .
WT! «man.
334. .i, .

i8;

.n. . .15
1'5.

5.11721
.. {.L .46 ..
SILL!“
3!. EV
1:11;”.
7......
it." a ‘3
3... .. t
)5. 111...?
.r. .11).}?
1.53.

. #33»

“UV” ’1 t, .I.\

I?

.33.;

 

. .rfiul...)

"549.1%“?
.. .

I 0.. . n . Ya.

.g.r.m?,..‘....n§ $55..

.- l: as"...

1!.

 

.
. .5

,‘Mufiwgfl..dvn in?
yérfmmfizs.“ .n

I
!
vi.
\ Z ‘ .14): a

cm?" LIBRARY
‘ 1 Michigan State
University

3Q+72

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ONLINE COURSE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS

presented by
JEFFREY J HACKBORN

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree' In ,Physical Science

 

 

%MMM MM

Major'Phl‘éssor’ 3 Signature

August 5, 2005

 

Date

MSU is an Affinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2105 WWW

IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ONLINE COURSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
By

Jeffrey J. Hackborn

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of

MASTER OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE
Division of Science and Mathematics Education

2005

ABSTRACT

IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ONLINE COURSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

In this thesis, data were collected in order to help determine the effectiveness on
physics instruction of the LON-CAPA online course management system, an open source
system currently being used by high schools and universities around the world. The data
were based upon several evaluations that were given over the course of two teaching
units of a high school introductory physics course. The evaluations include pretest and
post-tests to determine the effectiveness of online homework sets in helping students to
learn the course objectives. The second evaluation was a survey administered to the
Students where they were able to identify which portions of the system they took
advantage of, as well as the portions of the system that helped them the most.

The intention of this thesis is to provide educators with an additional resource
when considering the implementation of an online course management system in their
own class. There are several issues to take into account when using such a system and
the tools that they bring to a classroom. Authentic assessment, mass distribution of
information, and improved communication are but a few of the ways in which these
systems can enhance a class. Educators should consider all of the products that are
available and how it can be best implemented into their class before they commit to a

single system.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to thank Merle Heidemann for her support and guidance in this
study. The support staff of the Michigan State LITE lab have also been invaluable,
especially Felicia Berryman and Gerd Kortemeyer. Mark Beauman, Tim Hoshal, Sarah
Quain, and Chris Groves as well as the rest of the students and staff and Grand Ledge
High School, for their support and assistance in this project has been greatly appreciated.

Lastly, I would like to thank Candace Hackbom for her unwavering support at home.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Chapter Page
List of Tables ................................................................................... vi
1: Introduction
The LON-CAPA System ..................................................................... 1
Class Study: Introduction to Physics ...................................................... 7
2: Implementation
Preparation .................................................................................... l 1
Vector Addition Summary .................................................................. 16
Vector Addition Week One .......................................................... 17
Vector Addition Week Two .......................................................... 19
Vector Addition Week Three ......................................................... 21
Projectile Motion Summary ................................................................ 22
Projectile Motion Weeks One and Two ............................................. 24
Projectile Motion Week Three ....................................................... 25
Projectile Motion Weeks Four and Five ............................................ 26
3: Evaluations
Pre-tests and Post-tests ...................................................................... 29
Effectiveness of the LON-CAPA Problem Sets ......................................... 30
Vector Addition Homework Set ..................................................... 31
Projectile Motion Homework Set .................................................... 33
Effectiveness of the Number of Attempts ................................................ 34
Effectiveness of Quizzes ................................................ , .................... 35
Student Surveys
Overview ................................................................................ 36
Online Lecture Notes .................................................................. 37
Online Homework Sets ................................................................ 38
Communication ........................................................................ 39
Strengths of the LON-CAPA System ............................................... 40
Weakness of the LON-CAPA System .............................................. 42
4: Discussions
Technical and Administrative Problems .................................................. 46
Instructional Issues and Online Lecture Notes .......................................... 51
Course Management ........................................................................ 54
Conclusions and Future Goals .............................................................. 55

iv

Appendices .......................................................................................... 59

Appendix A: Vector Addition Homework Problems .................................. 60
Appendix B: Projectile Motion Homework Problems ................................. 72
Appendix C: Vector Addition Unit Objectives .......................................... 91
Appendix D: Projectile Motion Unit Objectives ........................................ 93
Appendix E: Sample Online Lecture Notes ............................................. 95
Appendix F: Pre-Test and Post-Test Assessments ..... ; ............................... 97
Appendix G: LON-CAPA Trigonometry Quiz ....................................... 110
Appendix H: LON-CAPA Projectile Motion Quiz ................................... 112
Appendix I: Lab-Based Projectile Motion Quiz ....................................... 114
Appendix J: Student Survey ....... ‘ ...................................................... 116
Biliography ....................................................................................... 119

LIST OF TABLES

 

Table Page
Table 1: Summary of topics covered in the Vector AdditiOn Unit ......................... 16
Table 2: Summary of topics covered in the Projectile Motion Unit ........................ 22
Table 3: Vector addition objectives results ................................................... 28
Table 4: Projectile motion objectives results .................................................. 29
Table 5: Student performance on vector addition homework set ........................... 31
Table 6: Student performance on projectile motion homework set ........................ 32
Table 7: Frequently viewed sections of LON-CAPA ........................................ 36
Table 8: Usefulness of online lecture notes ................................................... 36
Table 9: How online lecture notes are used ................................................... 37
Table 10: Effectiveness of communication on LON-CAPA ................................ 38
Table 11: Student reported strengths of the LON-CAPA system .......................... 39
Table 12: Student reported weaknesses of the LON-CAPA system ....................... 41

vi

INTRODUCTION

1: THE LON-CAPA SYSTEM

In the spring of 2005, I attended a meeting with various administrators at the high
school and middle school level where one of the principals said, “The parents simply
want computers in the classroom. They are not even sure what they mean by it. They
just know that is what they want.” This is a common theme as our society continues to
equate technology with progress (Johnsen & Taylor, 2002). As more impressive
technology becomes readily available to the consumer each year, educators are faced
with more pressure, both from outside, and within, to bring more technology into their
classes. But educators need to be cautious and thoughtful when they decide to integrate
technology into their classrooms. According to Dr. Gan Siowck Lee, technology should
be integrated for “better teaching-learning through more effective teaching and increased
teacher, student and material interaction as well as collaboration with peers and experts
beyond the classroom walls.” (Devi, 2001) Indeed, Kozma agrees that information
management, the strong suit of computers and technology is also its most effect use in the
classroom (2003). Charp concluded that not only is technology less adept at simple rote
presentation of material and drill instruction, it has been shown to be less effective than
traditional classroom means for these tasks (Charp, 1999). Furthermore, the integration
of technology should take place within the framework of the class curriculum. Students
need to view technology as the best tool for a given task within the curriculum.

(Lederman & Niess, 2000). Time spent instructing students on how to use it is time lost

teaching the curriculum. The oft use phrase is, “The curriculum must drive the
technology. Technology cannot drive the curriculum.”

This study documents the integration of an online course management system,
LON-CAPA (Learning Online Network - Computer Assisted Personalized Assignments)
into a high school physics class. Through the use of this system I intended to accomplish
two goals. First, I wanted to increase the availability of information to my students. This
was to be accomplished through increasing the ways students could access class
information, and to increase the communication between students. I also wanted to use a
method of authentic assessment on homework problems where students were judged on
their abilities as opposed to what they observed their peers to do. Both of these goals
could be met through the implementation of the LON-CAPA system.

There are a number of ways to make materials electronically available to students.
Several services are available that will host websites where teachers can place class
material. These have the advantage of providing additional information to anyone who
happens to bring up the pages through an online search or with prior knowledge of the
URL. Additionally, information is available to the students whenever and wherever they
connect to the Internet. This level of access can save time, effort and money for both the
students and the learning institution.

If a teacher wished for a more controlled distribution, the directory of notes could
be burned onto a CD, which could then be viewed through any browser. There are
several advantages to this approach. The notes are not placed on the Internet. This will
prevent the usual problems that are normally associated with assignments and

information that are posted on the Internet. The most common of these problems are

connections of varying speed and reliability among the students’ computers at home.
While planning a course that is on the Internet, I believe that you must do so with the
least technologically advantaged student in mind (DiBello, 2005). A brief survey at the
beginning of the school year determined that this year, all of my students had Internet
access and that they were familiar with the basic functions of Internet browser software
and navigation through a hierarchy of content folders. This difference in computer
abilities has been found to be of greater importance than the differing levels of access that
students might have (DiBello, 2005: Solomon, 2002). This needs to be addressed since
this “digital divide” can cause separation among the students as they divide themselves
into system users and nonusers (Bobak, Casserino, Finley, 2004; Simonson & Schlosser,
2004). While some students have the advantage of a highly reliable and fast cable
connection, many students are limited to older machines and dial up modems. By placing
all of the notes onto a CD, the speed of the systems is dictated by the speed of the
computer instead of the speed of the Internet connection, so the web pages are retrieved
almost instantly. Of course there is a disadvantage as well in that the CD now becomes
little more than a smaller textbook and must be with the students whenever they wish to
access the information on it. Students are not able to access the notes from any machine
with an Internet connection as they could if the notes were published with on the Internet.
This method would also require supplemental materials be created to address any changes
to the class throughout the year. Like many of the online course management systems
that are available, LON-CAPA makes elements of a class available to students wherever

they are able to gain access to the Internet.

The LON-CAPA system also provides teachers with several tools with which they
can deliver various forms of information to their students. The first of which is a
framework where teachers can create structure for their online courses. The system is set
up for the teacher and students to utilize a hierarchy of folders and content that most
students and teachers are familiar with fiom their previous computer experience using
either Windows or Apple OS operating systems. The teacher also has access to the
parameters that control these contents and folders. With this control, the teacher is able
to determine when materials are available to students, through opening and closing dates,
as well as what computers have access to the contents through their IP address, the
number of attempts that students have on each problem and the numerical tolerance that
the system will use in determining correct answers.

For example, a teacher may use the opening and closing dates to establish when a
homework assignment is available to the students to work on, as well as when it is due.
Along this same line, the teacher may also establish when the answers toa problem, or
folder of problems, may be viewed by the students. This can be helpful as it allows the
students to see the correct answers and use them to work out the problems that they
missed. As for the IP address control, teachers can use this tool to create assessments
such as online quizzes and tests that can be made only available to students in a given
classroom or computer lab, as specified with a range of IP addresses.

The LON-CAPA system also provides teachers with the means of creating
resources for their classes and sharing them with other teachers who participate within
the system. Teachers are given an online work area called the ‘Construction Space.” In

this area, teachers are able to code and test assessment problems and import materials

from outside the system. Once the materials have been constructed, the teacher publishes
the materials within the system so that they are available to the system users. The level
of user access is determined by the teacher so that they may be used only within that
teacher’s classes, the teacher’s domain, which is essentially the school where the teacher
works, or system wide so that it is available to all teachers to import into their classes as
they see fit. This ability to control the level of access is useful when dealing with
copyrighted materials that can only be used by schools that have purchased the rights to
use them (S. 487, 2001).

The problem sets, examples of which are listed in Appendices A and B, are an
incredible tool in the LON-CAPA system. The problems that are developed in the
system are coded in XML with some Perl elements for numerical problems. Through the
coding, the teacher is able to set elements within the problem to be randomized as well as
establishing parameters by which this randomization will be determined. Among these
parameters are the high and low extremes for a given value as well as the “steps” by
which the computer can selection a number between these extremes. For example, a user
can create a random value between 3.5 and 10.5, by steps of .1, so the resultant could be
3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 on to 10.5. Since the elements within the problem have been
randomized, the teacher must code or instruct the system on the correct way in which to
find the answer instead of simply entering a single correct answer that applies to all the
students.

This ability to randomize problems makes LON-CAPA a useful tool for authentic
homework assessment. The teacher is able to either develop a set of problems or select

them from the library of resources that have been created by other users. Once placed

within the course, the homework sets are assigned to the students. The problems sets are
essentially the same for each student, yet the individual problems are not the same for any
student. So each assignment is unique in this respect. The students are not able to ask
each other what the answers are to a given problem since no tWo students have the same
problem.

Since the computer has been instructed on how to complete the problem, it takes
over the role of grading the problems. As such, the students receive instant feedback in
regards to whether or not they have successfully completed the problem. This feature
allows the student to re-examine problems that they have not successfully completed and
work them again until they are correct. Additionally, this instantaneous grading of
student work results in up to the moment, real time data of the performance of individual
students as well as of the class as a whole. This presentation of data is of extreme
importance to the teacher as it allows the teacher to modify the lesson plan in order to
address perceived weaknesses of the students before the completion of the unit.

Additionally, the unique problem sets are an effective means for encouraging
cooperative learning among the students while still maintaining individual accountability
on the student’s part, a key role to the success of cooperative learning among groups of
students (Brush 1998). Since the problems have unique answers, utilizing the same
technique for finding the correct answer, the system encourages students to ask each
other how to solve problems. In fact, there are several mechanisms built into the system
to facilitate communication between the students. It is important that students
communicate with each other in any class, but with all of the class sections participating

within the same system, they are now able to communicate with any other student who is

taking the class. The intersystem email allows students to communicate with the
instructor privately and also allows the instructor to “broadcast” emails to the entire class.
In fact, the instructor can set a priority to these emails so that the students cannot work
within the system until they have acknowledged the email, at Which point an automated
response is sent back to the instructor.

In addition to the email, the teacher has the option to attach discussion boards to
any of the resources that are utilized in the class. I chose to attach discussion boards to
each of the problems so that students could pose questions about that particular problem
to the class and help each other determine the answers. I also attached discussion boards
to the lecture notes so that they could ask each other about any points that were brought
up in the day’s lecture. There were also discussion boards attached to the homework sets
so that students could pose questions to the class about how the problems should be
approached in general. For example, a student might ask for a refresher on how to break
a velocity vector into its component vectors while working within the projectile motion
unit. This asynchronous communication is especially helpful to those students who are
less outspoken but still need to benefit from the interactions of students with each other
and their teacher (Seng & Al-Hawamdeh 2001). As a teacher, the system provides an
icon next to the items in which new posts have been created within the discussion board
for that item. This allows the teacher go directly to the problems that students have asked
questions about, saving time and effort.

The last form of communication that is included in the system is the online chat
room. This allows students and the teacher to communicate in real time with anyone else

who is active within the course at that time. This last means of communication is

particularly effective for its conversation-like nature in allowing short replies and
comments to be posted quickly and for all to read in an instant. However, it is only good
for those who are online at that moment so it loses the “timeless” quality that the
discussion boards have (Thoennessen, Kashy, Tsai, Davis 1999). Those students who are
not online at that moment do not benefit from the conversations that take place on the

chat room.

2: CLASS STUDY: INTRODUCTION TO PHYSICS

I used the LON-CAPA system in my Introduction to Physics course at Grand
Ledge High School during the 2004-2005 school year. Grand Ledge High School is a
large school of approximately 1850 students. Located just west of Lansing, Michigan, it
has a large Caucasian middle class population that dominates the student demographic.
My Introduction to Physics classes, of which I had three sections, consisted of eighty-six
students. Sixty-six of those students agreed to take part in all or portions of the study.
The demographic of students taking part in the study was very much like that which
characterizes the school in general.

The addition to my classroom of a cart of fifteen Apple iBook laptop computers
played a crucial role in the implementation of the LON-CAPA system. Whereas in past
years, using computers in class meant scheduling time in one of the high school computer
labs and moving the class to the computer lab for that day, now the students had instant

access to computers when they needed them. The wireless connection to the laptop

computers allowed the students to use them at their desks where they also had all their
resources and materials available to them.

The Introduction to Physics course is an algebra based science class that studies
Newtonian‘mechanics and the properties of waves. It is a full year course in which I
stress the use of mathematics to reinforce the relationships that are studied in the class.
The two units that I chose to use for the study were those dealing with vector addition
and projectile motion.

Many instructors incorporate vector addition into one of the early units of an
introductory physics course. I believe that learning about vectors and how to manipulate
them is worthy of a unit unto itself. Although vectors are little more than mathematical
tools, many students in my class are not yet equipped to perform operations using
vectors. Developing a separate unit for vector addition works twofold to help the
students. First it helps them to see the importance of learning these operations. They are
not presented as a mere tool to perform some other task within the unit. Instead they are
the focus of the unit. From the onset, I inform them that this a mathematics unit that.
describes a tool that they will use throughout the rest of the year. It also takes away the
temptation to rush through this material in order to continue on with the unit. The
importance of mastering the unit objectives (Appendix C) is pressed upon the students
without creating a sense of urgency that might otherwise cause the students to panic.

The projectile motion unit is a sensible unit to follow the unit on vector addition.
Now that the students have learned how to manipulate vectors, this unit provides them
with an opportunity to use these skills. Although the objectives of this unit (Appendix D)

do not deal extensively with vector addition, there is extensive work with breaking

vectors into components and dealing with those components. The independence of
vector components from each other becomes plainly evident when students observe the
components in the vertical direction being influenced by the acceleration due to gravity

while those components that are in the horizontal direction are not.

10

IMPLEMENTATION

l: PREPARATION

It has been found in multiple studies that online class Work is most positively
influenced by careful planning on the part of the teacher prior to implementation
(Michael, 1998; Solomon, 2002). I first set my goals for what I wanted from the
implementation of the LON-CAPA system. As mentioned earlier, I wanted to make the
class information more accessible to all students and I wanted a means of assessing the
students on their individual abilities. Along with the problem sets that I would be
administering to the students, I developed a series of integrated lecture notes using
hyperlinked web pages, a sample of which is located in Appendix E. The content was
hyperlinked so that whenever an item covered in the class is mentioned in any section of
the notes, clicking on that concept would send the user to the notes that dealt with that
section. This gives the student control over the delivery of the course content, reinforcing
the idea that this is a tool for their benefit. For example, the notes dealing with Newton’s
second law of motion state that force is equal to the product of mass and acceleration.

9, 6‘

Within these notes, clicking on “force, mass,” or “acceleration,” will take the user to
the appropriate set of notes that deal with that particular topic. This allows the user to
either go back and review sections in order to refresh their memory or to jump ahead and
see how the current concept will tie into future material.

The notes were written in such a way as to maintain a consistent format

throughout the year. A simple header was designed to integrate a photo along with a title

for each unit. The photo was often used as a launching pad for the material that was to be

11

presented that day. The information was intentionally written in a text format rather than
an outline format that lecture notes commonly take in order to encourage students to
develop their own notes. Formulas and variables were placed within boxes to visually set
them apart so that the students could refer to them quickly when working on assignments.
At the end of each set of notes were sample problems. These problems were formatted as
rollover images so that the students could see the problem and work it out on their own
before placing the cursor over the problem in order to see the solution. We often went
over these problems together as a class.

The notes were developed using Macromedia’s Dreamweaver software.
Dreamweaver is a fairly straightforward website construction program that does not
require much knowledge on the user’s part of Hypertext Markup Language (HTML).

The program operated much like a standard word processor with the ability to drag and
drop items into the work from outside sources. The user is able to simply develop a page
that looks and operates as intended and the software compiles the information into
HTML.

Once the notes were completed, they were uploaded into my construction space
where I was able to publish them for use within the LON-CAPA system. This allowed
the students to access the notes from any computer that is online. By placing the notes
within the framework of the LON-CAPA system, they were further organized by units
and the applicable problem sets were also placed within the same units.

It has been well established that structure is one of the most important features of
any distance learning system (teleconferencing, audio conferencing, online material, etc.)

that relate to student success and positive attitudes towards learning. Structure plays an

12

important role in online coursework as it helps to define the roles of the teacher and
students in the class (Johnsen & Taylor, 2002). The structure that the teacher
incorporates defines the sequence of content, modes of delivery for the content as well as
teacher and student interaction (Kearsley & Lynch 1996). Of the items listed, well-
defined modes of interaction have been found to have a great positive impact on the
students as they need to feel connected to the class, even when they are physically
detached from the class (Stein, Wanstreet, Calvin, Overtoom & Wheaton 2005). With
this in mind, the format of the class within the LON-CAPA system was a fairly
straightforward layout that made for easy navigation in the system for both the students
and me. Each unit was given its own folder so that the students could go directly into the
unit on which they are working. Inside of each of these unit folders are five subfolders:
Homework, which contained the problem sets that are graded by the system; Notes, which
contained lecture notes; Demos provided a venue for QuickTime movies and audio of
various pieces of the course that students could view; Labs, where online labs could be
performed; and Web Resources, with various web links that students or I found useful in
completing the work in the unit. Although the format of lab work and homework
problems are essentially the same, the main advantage of keeping online lab work in a
folder separate from the homework assignment is that it allowed me to maintain separate
open and closing dates for the labs and the homework. A lab might only be open for a
day or two while the homework assignment is open for the entire duration of the unit.

In addition to the preparations needed to utilize the LON-CAPA system, several
assessments were developed or adapted in order to measure the effectiveness of this

system. Since this is a class that I have taught several times, I already had post-test

13

assessments to measure the students’ mastery of the objectives for both the vector
addition and projectile motion units. These same tests were used again as pre-test
assessments in order for me to determine what the students had already learned from
previous instruction. These pre-test and post-test assessments Can be found in Appendix
F.

I wanted to test the suitability of the system for administering in class assessments
to the students. Because it was the system being assessed, I used the previously tests to
measure what the students learned over the course of the unit. I used the system to
administer two quizzes to the class over the course of the two units. In the vector
addition unit, I developed a quiz to test the students’ mastery of trigonometric functions.
This quiz was intended to be administered early on in the vector addition unit. The
objectives that it addressed were the very first to be introduced. Students were expected
to be able to identify the sides and angles of a right triangle, as well as using
trigonometric functions correctly in order find the value of a missing side or a missing
angle on a right triangle. This quiz took the form of three problems that were available
through the LON-CAPA system. These three problems were only open to the students
during the class period and the students were only allowed three attempts to answer the
problems. Once the unit was completed, I would compare the results of the quiz to the
corresponding objectives on the post-test assessment in order to determine if the quiz was
an indicator of what the students had learned. Appendix G contains a copy of this quiz.

In the projectile motion unit, I developed an online quiz to be administered over
the LON-CAPA system that was compared with a lab-based quiz that I already had in

place in the class that tested the same objectives. See Appendix H for a sample of this

14

quiz. For the lab-based quiz, which can be viewed in Appendix I, the students were able
to work in small lab groups in order to solve a problem dealing with a projectile that was
launched with an initial velocity that was completely horizontal. The students were given
a marble, a meter stick, a stopwatch, and a launching device that allowed to the ball to
roll off the table at a consistent rate. The students were given time to determine whatever
information they could about the trajectory of the ball as it rolled off the tabletop. The
marble was then taken away and a target was placed on an elevated surface.

The students were then instructed to place the elevated target in the correct
location so that when they were given the marble back, it would roll ofi‘ the launcher and
strike the target. When the students were ready, a piece of carbon paper was placed face
down on the target and the ball was rolled off the launcher. The impact of the marble
against the carbon paper left a mark on the target, indicating where the ball had hit. The
students were then graded on their accuracy as well as the procedure that the students
developed for determining the information about the flight of the marble and where it
would strike on the new target.

The LON-CAPA quiz for the projectile motion (Appendix H) unit was designed
to address the same objectives as the lab-based quiz. In fact, the procedure for this quiz
was nearly identical except for the fact that in this case, the procedure was spelled out
plainly for the student to follow, whereas the lab-based quiz also introduced the element
of problem solving to the group, as they were to determine the procedure.

With the LON-CAPA quiz, a small QuickTime movie was imbedded into the
problem set. Students were instructed to measure the time that the projectile was in the

air. The distance that the ball traveled in the air was given to the students in the movie.

15

With that information the students were asked to solve a series of numerical response
questions, similar to the homework sets shown in Appendices A and B. As a teacher, a
homework set was issued to my account as well. Those are the actual problems that are
included in the appendices. Each student had a set of the same problems; only the
numerical elements within those problems were different, as described in the
introduction.

The last assessment that I developed was a survey, which gave the students an
opportunity to express their attitudes about the LON-CAPA system and how it was
implemented in my class. A copy of this survey is located in Appendix J. The survey
consisted of a series of short answer and scaled response questions pertaining to each of
the aspects of the LON-CAPA system described in the previous section. Students were
also given an opportunity to freely respond to what they felt were the strengths and

weaknesses of the LON-CAPA system.

2: VECTOR ADDITION SUMMARY

Table 1 describes the subject being taught and a reference to the LON-CAPA
lecture notes for that day. The objectives are numbered according to the objectives listed
in Appendix C. Column four indicates whether there were corresponding LON-CAPA
homework problems for those objectives and the Features column lists any addition

LON-CAPA resources mentioned in this study.

16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Week / Topic / Objective LON-CAPA Extra Features
Day Problems
Week 1 Vector Addition Pre-test NA NA
Day 1
Week 1 Trigonometric Functions 3 No
Day 2 Lecture Notes 2-1
Week 1 Vectors 1, 2, 5 Yes ’
Day 3 Lecture Notes 2-2
Week 1 Components 6, 7 Yes
Day 4 Lecture Notes 2-3
Week 1 Quiz: Trigonometric NA NA LON-CAPA
Day 5 Functions administered quiz
Week 2 Vector Addition 3, 4, 5, 6, Yes
Day 1 Lecture Notes 2-4 7, 8
Week 2 Vector Addition in class NA No
Day 2 problem set
Week 2 Inclined Surfaces 5, 6, 7, 8 Yes
Day 3 Lecture Notes 2-5
Week 2 Equilibrants 4, 5, 8 Yes
Day 4 Lecture Notes 2-6
Week 2 Vector Addition Quiz NA NA
Day 5 (Not part of study)
Week 3 Review for post-test NA NA
Day 1
Week 3 Review for post-test NA NA
Day 2
Week 3 Vector Addition Post-test NA NA
Day 3

 

 

 

 

 

3: VECTOR ADDITION WEEK ONE

Table 1: Summary of topics covered in the Vector Addition unit

The first day began with a pretest (Appendix F) to establish prior knowledge of

the material. This assessment was a means to measure the effectiveness of the tools that I

was incorporating into the class by determining what the students already knew from

previous instruction. The homework set for the vector addition unit (Appendix A) was

17

 

also opened at this time. The students were informed that the problem sets would be due
at the end of the unit. I also reminded them that the even though I usually made it a point
to try to get online between 8:00 and 9:00 at night and would be present in the chat room
to answer any questions, their best course of action was a post questions on the discussion
board so that anyone who accessed the problem would benefit fi'om the responses.

On the second day I introduced the first section of the vector addition unit, which
dealt with simple trigonometric functions. Since much of what goes on in an
introductory physics course deals with working with the components of objects that are
acting at an angle, it is important for students to understand these functions in order to
break entities into their components or to combine components in order to determine a
vector’s magnitude and direction. With only about half of the students taking Functions,
Statistics and Trigonometry (FST) concurrently with physics, many of them had never
been exposed to sine, cosine, and tangent functions. I explained to the class that I would
treat this material as if it was new to the entire class, and those who already knew this
material could treat this section as a review. Based on the feedback from the students, I
concluded that many of them were quite comfortable with the material.

Day three introduced the concept of a vector. We began with a discussion of what
a vector represents and how vectors behave. I also used examples of adding vectors
graphically so that they could start to get an idea of how they interact with each other.
Many of these examples were already incorporated into the online lecture notes. Having
the examples written into the notes provided an additional aid to keep me from forgetting

to mention them in a lecture period.

18

The following day we discussed vector components. I reminded them of our
conversation from the day before. Even though on the surface components may seem
ancillary and time consuming when using them to add vectors, in the upcoming units
there will be many cases where the components seem more important than the actual
vector, itself. The concept of component axes was also introduced. There were a couple
of examples of component axes written into the lecture notes. Here the students could
see that what occurs along one component axis has no effect on what is happening along
the other axis. Students seem to struggle with this concept, as it requires them to
determine which axis system is appropriate for a given situation. I also made it a point to
announce to the class that the following day’s quiz would be administered over the LON-
CAPA system.

On the fifth day, the students were administered a quiz via the LON-CAPA
system (Appendix G). They were given the hour to complete the quiz. The time was
more than sufficient as every student in all three class sections completed the quiz well
before the class period ended. There were two problems that occurred with the quiz as it
was administered. Both of these problems as their solutions are discussed in the

DISCUSSIONS section of this paper.
4: VECTOR ADDITION WEEK TWO
The next section to be taught was vector addition. I did everything I could to

impart upon the students the importance of this single section. I pointed out to them that

I had even switched the background color of the LON-CAPA online notes to a bright

l9

yellow, instead of the normal white, to reinforce the importance of learning this
procedure. The procedure that I teach for adding vectors is broken into three steps: 1)
Break the vectors into their components; 2) Combine the like components; 3) Recombine
the resultant components in order to create the resultant vector. ‘

On the second day of week two, the students were given the class period to work
on a problem set for some additional practice in vector addition. The problem set was
provided in the ancillary materials from the textbook publisher. As I handed out the
problem set, I again stressed to the students how important it was that they learn the
process for vector addition. I tried to explain to them that their ability to succeed in the
next few units hinged upon their ability to master this skill. Even after this brief talk,
most of the students still opted to work on their LON-CAPA homework set in lieu of
working on the vector addition problems.

On day three we discussed inclined surfaces. I alluded back to the prior section
pertaining to components, reminding them that the only stipulation in creating a system
of components is that they be orthogonal to each other. Even though the vast majority of
component systems appear to be horizontal and vertical, even those that are oriented
East-West, and North-South are often drawn to appear horizontal and vertical. In the
case of inclined surfaces, it is most advantageous to orient the components so that they
are either parallel or perpendicular to the inclined surface.

Week two, day four was when we discussed the last topic of the unit, equilibrants.
I explained to the class that the section dealing with equilibrants did not introduce
anything new into the course, since an equilibrant is a vector that brings the vector sum to

zero. As such, it is identical in size to the resultant of a set of vectors and it has the

20

opposite direction. Its components have the same size as the components of the resultant,
but their signs are reversed. I stressed to the students that if they discipline themselves to
stick to the procedure that I taught them in the vector addition section, then all they have
to do is switch the signs on the resultant components to produce'the equilibrant: the same
procedure that produces the resultant can also produce the equilibrant.

At this point I felt that we had covered vector addition to the point that on Friday,
administering a vector addition quiz was appropriate. Once the quiz was completed, the
students were given a small handwritten problem set to work on. The problems all
involved breaking up vectors on an incline into their components and were intended to

give me a base for further class discussion on the topic.

5: VECTOR ADDITION WEEK THREE

The first two days of week three were spent reviewing for the post-test, which
would be administered on day three of that week. The students were given a handwritten
collection of problems that covered the main objectives of the unit. The day that the
problems were handed out the students were not given the option to work on their LON-
CAPA problem set that I had assigned at the beginning of the unit (Appendix A). The
following day was spent in its entirety reviewing the solutions to the review problem set.

I was away at a conference the day that the test (Appendix F) was administered to
the students. When I returned the next day, I found that most of the students were not

confident in how they had performed on the test. Several students expressed concern that

21

had I been there, I would have been able to answers various questions of clarity on the

test.

6: PROJECTILE MOTION SUMMARY

As with Table 1, the Table 2 describes the subject being taught a reference to the
lecture notes for that day. The objectives are numbered according to the objectives listed
in Appendix D. Column four indicates whether there were corresponding LON-CAPA
homework problems for those objectives and the Features column lists any addition

LON-CAPA resources mentioned in this study.

22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Week / Topic / Objective LON-CAPA Features
Day Problems
Week 1 Projectile Motion Pre-test NA NA
Day 5
Week 2 Data collection for “fly ball” NA No
Day 1 projectile project
Week 2 Expectations for write up of NA No
Day 2 “fly ball” projectile project
Week 2 Horizontal Launchings l, 2, 3, 4 Yes QuickTime movie
Day 3 Lecture Notes 3-1 demo
Week 2 Hours 2, 3: LON-CAPA set NA NA
Day 4 Hour 6: Lecture Notes 3-1 1, 2, 3, 4 Yes
Week 2 Hours 2,3: Lab-based Quiz NA No Lab-based Quiz
Day 5 Hour 6: CAPA-based Quiz CAPA-based Quiz
Week 3 Hours 2,3: CAPA-based Quiz NA No CAPA-based Quiz
Day 1 Hour 6: Lab-based Quiz Lab-based Quiz
Week 3 Hours 2,3: Angled Launching 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Yes
Day 2 Lecture Notes 3-2 NA No CAPA-based Quiz
Hour 6: CAPA-based Quiz
Week 3 Varied Initial and Final 1, 2, 3, 4 Yes
Day 3 Heights: Lecture Notes 3-3
Week 4 CAPA Homework Set NA NA
Day 1
Week 4 Review of Class Materials NA NA
Day 2
Week 4 In Class Work on “Fly Ball” NA NA
Day 3 Project
Week 4 Projectile Motion Quiz NA NA
Day 4
Week 4 Review for Post-test NA NA
Day 5
Week 5 Projectile Motion Post-test NA NA
Day 1

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2: Summary of topics covered for the Vector Addition unit

23

 

7: PROJECTILE MOTION WEEKS ONE AND TWO

Because of cold weather, the class took the projectile motion pretest (Appendix F)
instead of collecting data for the “fly ball” projectile motion project. In addition to this, I
announced the opening of the projectile motion problem set (Appendix B) to the class.

So on Monday of week two, we collected data for the “fly ball” projectile project. I took
the students out to the baseball diamond to hit fly balls. Each student took a turn at the
plate and took a few slow pitches of a tennis ball to swing at. The distance that the ball
traveled, as well as the time that they were in the air were recorded for each of their hits.
Over the course of the unit, the students would learn how to break down the motion of the
ball. Breaking up the flight into ten intervals, the students would examine with a series of
graphs and illustrations what was happening to the position, velocity, and acceleration of
the ball until it hit the ground.

Expectations for this project were shown on a video made by last year’s students
that illustrated the requirements of the write up for the project. The video was far more
entertaining than informational, so from there, a large amount of time was spent going
over the requirements with the class. I explained to them that they would complete this
project on their own time, outside of class. They were given only one class period in
order to finish up some pieces of the write-up at the end of the unit when it was due in
addition to some occasional “down time” when they could work on the write-up as well.

Wednesday we reviewed vector components. Making use of the hyperlinked
notes, we were able to visit the pages that pertained to components. We also started the

online lecture notes for the day’s material. The notes included a small QuickTime movie

24

that illustrated the principle that gravity only acts in the vertical direction. The film was a
shot of a ball rolling horizontally off of a tabletop and striking the ground below. The
movie stops for a few seconds at each tenth of a second as the ball travels through the air.
The movie was projected onto the whiteboard at the front of the room and as the ball
paused I marked the position of the ball on the board. We measured the positions of the
ball at each interval in both the horizontal and vertical directions. It was easy to see from
the measurements that the ball traveled at a constant rate in the horizontal direction as the
distance increased at regular intervals. In the vertical direction we applied the formulas
that the students had learned in the first unit dealing with free fall to solve for
acceleration and confirmed that the ball acceleration of 9.8 meters/seeondz.

At the end of the week, the classes were scheduled to take the lab-based quiz
(Appendix I). The quiz was essentially a physical reenactment of the movie that they had
seen the day before. An assembly that had occurred earlier in the week had thrown the
sixth period class out of sync with the other two. As such, I decided to administer the
LON-CAPA projectile motion quiz (Appendix H) instead. Since the objectives tested,
and the overall procedure to be followed was intended to be the same for both quizzes,

they could be administered in either order.

8: PROJECTILE MOTION WEEK THREE

The week began with the students completing the LON-CAPA and lab-based

quizzes (Appendix I), followed by the second of three lectures for this unit, concerning

- the launching of an object at an angle. In this section, I did everything that I could to

25

stress the procedure that was used to solve these problems over any of the particulars of
the sample problems. Most of the questions that the students asked concerned whether or
not learning the information in this section would enable them to complete all of the
remaining problems in the LON-CAPA homework set. I informed them that after the
next day’s lecture, they would have all the necessary information to complete the LON-
CAPA homework set. The students were assigned a small problem set fiom the textbook
to reinforce what they had learned. However, once they were free to work, the majority
of the students acquired computer to work on the LON-CAPA homework set.

The last of the three lectures fell on the Wednesday before the Thanksgiving
break. I presented it as an extension of the previous day’s lecture, launching at an angle.
In this case, the object landed at a height other than that from which it was launched and
the symmetries that existed when the object returns to its original height no longer apply.
Before leaving for the extended weekend, I reminded the students of the impending due
date for the LON-CAPA homework set and that I would make an effort to be online

during the evening hours while I was at home over the weekend.

9: PROJECTILE MOTION WEEKS FOUR AND FIVE

After Thanksgiving break the students were given the hour to work on their
CAPA sets in class. This gave me the opportunity to answer any questions the students
might have about any of the problems that they had been working on in the homework

set. Since many of them had very similar questions about the same problems, I was able

26

to put my own problem set (Appendix B) up on the overhead in order to use it as an
example for the classes.

Looking through the system generated feedback I noticed that many of the
students were having difficulties with the problem that involved solving for multiple
variables. Before class on Tuesday, I worked out an example problem that involved
using two equations to solve for two unknowns. The volleyball problem that had so
many students concerned actually makes use of three equations in order to solve for three
unknowns. I had expected that the students would be able to take the example as a
reminder of a procedure that they had learned in algebra and apply it to three unknowns.
Once again, much of what I stressed in these units dealt with learning the procedure and
their rationale so that they can better apply these procedures in the future.

Students were given a day for working on their projectile motion projects (see
Projectile Motion Weeks One and Two). They were to spend the hour working out the
last of the calculations and graphs so that they need only complete a few pieces at home
to finish the project. Many of the students opted to work on their LON-CAPA homework
sets (Appendix-B) during the hour instead of working on the project

The last quiz for the unit was taken the next day. It was followed by a handful of
review problems to better prepare the students for the test that was to come up in a few
days. Several students approached me about coming in after school that day for some
additional assistance. I stayed after with those students until about five o’clock in the
evening.

The “Fly Ball” projects were due at the end of this week. I had announced to the

class that I would post the answers to the review questions and that I would answer

27

questions about the review or last minute questions about the projectile motion project.
After classes were over, stayed in my classroom again until 5:00, helping students with
their few remaining CAPA problems, which were due at midnight. The unit ended with a
test that was administered on the final day. After finishing the test (Appendix F), the
students were asked to complete a copy of the survey found in Appendix J concerning
their use of and attitudes toward the LON-CAPA system. I neglected to mention that
they needed to write their names on the survey and so I was only able to identify twenty-

nine surveys from students who agreed to be part of the study.

28

EVALUATIONS

1: PRE-TESTS AND POST-TESTS

The mastery of objectives (Appendixes C and D) was measured using pre-tests
and post-tests for each of the units. The pre-tests were administered at the beginning of
the unit to establish what the prior knowledge that the students had. The post-tests were
administered at the end of the units to determine which of the unit objectives the students

had mastered. Table 3 illustrates the results from those tests for the vector addition unit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objective Pre-test Results Post-test Results
1: Vector Properties 41% 86%
2: Scalar Properties 35% 81%
3: Trigonometry 22% 84%
4: Commutative Property 55% 86%
5: Effect of Direction 21% 38%
6: Orthogonality 38% 73%
7: Vectors in Same Direction 27% 49%
8: Algebraic Addition 0% 32%

 

Table 3: Percentage of students that successfully completed the objectives (Appendix C)

of the pre-test and post-test for the vector addition unit. (11 = 66)

A paired t test of the data in Table 3 yields a probability of 0.000 of accepting the

null result, suggesting that the students’ comprehension of the objectives for the vector

addition unit increased after the instruction in the unit.

29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objective Pre-test Results Post-test Results
1: Independence of Components 46% 89%
2: Gravitational Acceleration 13% 91%
3: Horizontal Motion 5% 86%
4: Instantaneous Velocity 0% i 23%
5: Projectile Symmetry 0% 58%

 

Table 4: Percentage of students that successfully completed the objectives (Appendix D)

of the pre-test and post-test for the projectile motion unit. (n = 66)

A paired t test of the data in Table 4 yields a probability of p = 0.007 for
accepting the null result, once again leading me to believe that there is a relationship
between the students’ mastery of the objectives for the projectile motion unit and their
instruction during that unit.

There is a sign difference amount of prior knowledge coming into the vector
addition unit compared to that of the projectile motion unit. This is likely due to the fact
that much of the material in the vector addition unit is covered in both the Geometry and
Functions Statistics and Trigonometry classes that many of the students had completed

prior to taking this class.
2: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LON-CAPA PROBLEM SETS
The effectiveness of the LON-CAPA problem sets in helping the students to meet

the objectives (Appendix C and D) of the vector addition and projectile motion units was

evaluated. This evaluation is a comparison between the students’ pre-tests and post-tests

30

as related to their performance on the LON-CAPA problem set elements that addressed
that same objective.

Whether a student had learned a given objective was determined by comparing
the results of the student’s pre-test against the post-test question of the same objective. If
the student failed to successfully master the objective on the post-test, then it must be
concluded that the student did not learn that particular objective. In this portion of the
evaluation I have also eliminated those students who showed mastery of the objective on
the pretest. I assumed that those students already had sufficient knowledge of that
objective and did not learn that objective over the course of the unit. The only students
that have been considered in this analysis are those who displayed mastery of the
objective on the post-test and not on the pre-test. The number of students who fit these
criteria is shown in Table 5 and Table 6 of the following sections.

The performance of the students who learned the objective was compared against
that of the students who did not learn the objective. Students who did not master an
objective on the post-test are considered to have not successfully completed the objective.
Just as in the comparison above, how the student fared on the corresponding LON-CAPA

problems was measured against their success on the post-test evaluation.
3: VECTOR ADDITION HOMEWORK SET
There were eight measured objectives in the vector addition unit as described in

Appendix B. The Table 5 shows the average performance of students on the problems

that met each of the objectives. The performance by the students on the LON-CAPA

31

Vector Addition homework set was nearly the same regardless of whether or not they had
mastered the objective after instruction. The correspondence of the student’s
performance on the LON-CAPA homework set to their learning of the objective was
determined through a paired t Test where correlation was determined at a p value of .05.
The results of the Student t Test yielded p = .069. With these values as close as they are,
I can not confidently say that the performance on the LON-CAPA homework set is any
sort of indicator of the student’s performance on the post test assessment. Although this
did not seem out of the ordinary so nearly all the students received full credit or close to it

on the homework set.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objective Performance for Performance for Not
Learned Objectives Learned Objectives
1: Vector Properties 93.1% (28) 87.5% (9)
2: Scalar Properties 100% (32) 100% (11)
3: Trigonometry 98.9% (32) 75% (8)
4: Commutative Property 100% (26) 75% (7)
5: Effect of Direction 100% (15) 92.8% (38)
6: Orthogonality 100% (21) 100% (14)
7: Vectors in Same Direction 100% (16) 90% (30)
8: Algebraic Addition 88.9% (18) 93.9% (42)

 

Table 5: Student Performance on LON-CAPA Vector Addition Homework Set
In parenthesis are the numbers of students who fit the criteria.
The subjective trend in the data implies that the students’ performance on the
LON-CAPA homework set was indicative of whether or not they learned the objective.
In the first seven objectives, the students who learned the objectives performed as well or

better than those who did not meet the objectives. It was only on objective 8 that the

32

students who did not learn the objective performed better and the difference in their

scores was only 4%.

4: PROJECTILE MOTION HOMEWORK SET

For the projectile motion unit, there were only five measured objectives. Table 6
shows that the average score on the LON-CAPA problem set for the students who had
not mastered the objectives was slightly higher than the mean score for those students
who had mastered the objectives. When examined with a paired t test, the data from
Table 6 produced a p value of .808 With such a high probability of the null result, I
cannot conclude that a student’s performance on the homework set is any indication of

the student’s performance on the post-test assessment in this unit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objective Performance for Performance for Not
Learned Objectives Learned Objectives
1: Independence of
Components 89.3% (29) 96.3% (7)
2: Gravitational
Acceleration 84.6% (47) 93.8% (6)
3: Horizontal Motion 91% (50) 100% (8)
4: Instantaneous Velocity 82.8% (15) 79.9% (46)
5: Projectile Symmetry 92.4% (36) 76.4% (25)

 

Table 6: Student Performance on LON-CAPA Projectile Motion Homework Set
In parenthesis is the number of students who met the criteria.

In this case, the data were less conclusive than in the vector addition homework.
For objectives 1, 2, and 3, the students who did not learn the objectives performed better

on the LON-CAPA homework set than those students who did learn them.

33

5: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS

I also wanted to determine the effectiveness of the feedback that the LON-CAPA
system provides for the students. I analyzed those LON-CAPA problems that the
students did not successfully complete. These problems were chosen because they
indicate a student’s willingness to stick with a problem until it is correct. I looked only at
the number of attempts that the students made in order to see how effective it had been
for those students that made multiple attempts. I compared students who had achieved
the objective on the post-test against those students who had not mastered those
objectives. The same criteria were used in this evaluation as in the Evaluations, Section 2:
Effectiveness of the LON-CAPA Homework Set in order to determine whether the
student had learned the objective.

In the vector addition assignment there were three problems that met these
criteria. Of those three problems, students who learned the objective averaged 8.22
attempts per problem, while those students who failed to meet the objective averaged
only .933 attempts. Whereas this seems like a large difference at first, the Student’s t
Test produced a value of p = .14. Statistically, this result is not enough to say with any
certainty that there is a correlation between the number of attempts and the learned
objective. Looking at the data though, it seems obvious that those students who
eventually succeeded in mastering the objective made nearly nine times more attempts on
the problems that they were not successful at as those students who did not master the

objective.

34

The results of the analysis of the projectile motion homework set showed similar
results to those the vector addition homework. In this case there was a greater number of
samples as thirteen problems met the criteria. For these thirteen problems, students who
learned the objective averaged 1.15 attempts per problem. On the same problems, those
students who did not learn the objective averaged only 0.67 attempts on each problem,
slightly more than half that of the students who had success on the objective. However,
the value yielded in the paired t test was p = .15 This too was not enough to say with any
certainty that there is a correlation between the number of attempts and the level of

success achieved on the objective.

6: EFFECTIVENESS OF QUIZZES

In my classes, I use quizzes as a means of gaining feedback as to whether students
have mastered the most recent material. The analysis of the quizzes wasa bit simpler
than that of the LON-CAPA homework sets. For the sake of this evaluation, I wanted to
know if the students who successfully mastered the objectives on the quiz also mastered
them on the post-test assessment. I compared the objectives that the students completed
or missed on the quiz to the corresponding objectives on the post-test assessment.

With the vector addition quiz that was administered on the LON-CAPA system,
the results of the quiz very closely matched the results of the post-test. In fact, I found
that of the students who successfully completed the objective on the test, their scores

were 98.3% on the quiz, which measured only that objective.

35

In the case of projectile motion quiz, for the lab-based quiz there was a fairly high
correspondence between the objectives on the quiz and those of the test. 81.2% of the
results on the quiz were the same as those on the test. On the other hand, the results of
the CAPA-based quiz did not match up nearly as closely as thOse of the lab-based quiz.
On the LON-CAPA based quiz, only 43.2% of the objective results matched those of the
post-test. This would lead one to believe that the lab based quiz was a better indicator of

what the students knew at the time of the quiz than the LON-CAPA quiz.

7: STUDENT SURVEYS: OVERVIEW

At the end of the second unit, I administered a survey (Appendix J) that addressed
the ways in which the students made use of the LON-CAPA system. The survey allowed
for me to see what areas I, as an instructor, should place a greater effort in order to
address the needs of the students. The first questions addressed which parts of the LON-
CAPA system were used the most. The results of that question are in Table 7. Twenty-
nine students completed the survey. Since they were able to check more than one feature,

the total percentage exceeds one hundred percent.

36

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sections of the LON-CAPA system Percentage of students who
frequently used that section

Lecture Notes 72%

Daily Assignments 3 1%

Homework Assignments (Online) 100%

Calendar 7%

Labs 14%

Discussion Boards 69%

Web Resources 24%

 

Table 7: Results of the question, “Which sections of the LON-CAPA system do you use

frequently?”

8: ONLINE LECTURE NOTES

Because of the time spent preparing the online lecture notes, there were several
survey questions that asked about online notes. Of the students who participated in the
survey, 72% of them stated that they frequently viewed the online lecture notes. The
survey also asked the students to rank how useful they found the lecture notes. They

were given a five point scale with “5” being “very useful”, “3” being “somewhat useful”

and “1” being “not at all useful.” The results are shown in Table 8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rank Number of Students
5 -— Very Useful 24 %
4 34 %
3 — Somewhat Useful 28 %
2 7 %
l - Not At All Useful 7 %

 

 

 

Table 8: Results of the question, “Do you find the notes to be useful?”

37

 

With 86% of the students claiming that they found the notes to be at least
somewhat useful, this data seems consistent with the first question in which 72% claimed
that they viewed the online lecture notes frequently. When asked how the lecture notes

were used, the student responded as shown in Table 9.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Use Percentage of Students
Supplement to in-class lecture notes 31%
Reference for online homework 48%
In lieu of written notes 14%
Do not use them 7%

 

 

 

Table 9: Results of the question, “How do you use the online lecture notes?”
9: ONLINE HOMEWORK SETS

Referencing back to Table 9, it comes as no surprise that all of the students
reported using the online homework sets since these problems are counted towards their
overall class grade. As this portion of the system involves problems that are required for
the student’s grade, I had to take into account that the students have different levels of
Internet access. The LON-CAPA system has a print feature that generates simple, two
column .PDF documents that can be read by Adobe Acrobat, Acrobat Reader, a freeware
product, or Apple Preview and printed from any of these applications as well. At the
beginning of the year, I instructed the students on how to produce these documents. I
also advised those students with slower Internet connections to take advantage of this

function and print out their sets at the beginning of the unit. This allowed them to work

38

on the problems at their leisure and then enter their results online in less time. I found
that many students followed this advice regardless of their Internet connection, as they
simply preferred to read off a printed page instead of from a computer screen. This was
evident on the survey since 41% of the students claimed to print off hardcopies of the

homework sets.

10: COMMUNICATION

The students’ responses regarding the effectiveness of each of these forms of

communication present within the LON-CAPA system are shown in Table 10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Communication Very Effective Somewhat Effective Not At All
Effective
Email 5 12 12
General Discussion Board 15 14 0
Homework Discussion Board 18 9 1
Lecture Note Discussion 14 10 5
Chat Room ll 16 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 10: Student responses to the effectiveness of the different forms of
communication (29 student responses)

The results indicate that most students favored the use of the discussion boards. I
was not surprised to see that the email was not found to be nearly as effective, as I had
pressed upon them the advantage of using the discussion boards so that everyone could
see their questions and help out with the answer. I was surprised to see how effective the
students found the lecture note discussion boards to be since there was very little if

anything posted on the discussion boards that were attached to each day’s lecture notes.

39

It is possible that many students misinterpreted the question to be related to the

effectiveness of classroom discussions during the lecture

11: STRENGTHS OF THE LON-CAPA SYSTEM

The last portion of the survey asked the students to address the strengths and
weakness of the LON-CAPA system from a their point of view. I felt that this section
was of great importance, as the students need to feel that these tools are there to aid in
their learning. Huang found that student perception is linked to academic success in a
class (2002). Technology should not be brought into a class simply for the sake of
introducing technology; it must be driven by the curriculum of the course. The responses

that the students had to this question are listed in Table 11.

 

Strengths Number of students
Instant feedback on problem sets 11
Cooperative effort between all students
Open communication with all students
Motivates students to keep working
Provides more practice for tests
Open at all times / Better accessibility
Easier to take notes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i-‘NUJ-5'JIO‘

 

Table 11: Students reported strengths of the LON-CAPA system

I found it encouraging that the most reported strength was the fact that the system
provides instant feedback to the student regarding whether they have completed the

problem correctly. I had expected that this would be the one aspect of the system that

40

would not be as advantageous to students with slower Internet connections, as they are
also the ones who frequently print hard copies of their problem sets and then enter all of
their answers at a later time. I encouraged the students to use whatever free time they had
at the end of a class period to log onto the system and check their answers. I explained to
them that they needed to provide themselves with enough time to make corrections for
any of the incorrect problems.

Students also replied that the responses from the system motivated them to keep
working on the problems. In general, my students are not complacent. They are quite
academically motivated. For them to be given the opportunity to make corrections on a
problem is a great advantage. By making the homework set a significant portion of their
grade, the students are able to see large changes in their grade by successfirlly completing
the homework set. Thus, the feedback provided by the system allows them to track their
progress and address those parts within the unit where they are weakest. I was not
surprised that a similar number of students replied that the system allows them to better
prepare for a test at the unit of a unit.

The second and third largest positive responses pertained to the communication
tools within the system and the fact that the randomized problem sets promoted
cooperative learning between the entire class of students. I address these two issues
together as I believe that the cooperative learning that takes place between the students is
an extension of the communications that are inherent in the system. It’s rather promising
that many of them realized the advantages in using that communication to aid each other.

I did find it curious that only one person responded that the system makes it easier

to take class notes. This seems a contradiction to the number of students who replied that

41

they found the online lecture notes to be useful to them. Also, there was a large number
of students who had claimed that they either used the online lecture notes to supplement
the notes that they took in class or in lieu of taking written notes all together. It could be
that students who used the online lecture notes instead of taking notes did not respond
that the system made it easier to take notes since they did not actually take any notes of

their own.

12: WEAKNESS OF THE LON-CAPA SYSTEM

Table 12 shows the most frequent student responses in regards to the weaknesses

of the LON-CAPA system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weakness Number of Students
Not enough feedback on wrong answers 6
Internet access varies for students 4
Not enough tolerance for correct answers 3
Problems are harder than in class problems 3

 

Table 12: Students reported weakness of the LON-CAPA system

Although students appreciated the feedback that they received from the system,
several of them cited “Not enough feedback” as a weakness of the system. I believe that
there is a confidence issue at the root of this response. In speaking with the students and
working with them on problems that they had yet to correctly solve, I found that there
were different approaches taken by students of differing confidence levels. Students who

believed that they could complete the work seem undaunted when they received feedback

42

from the system saying that their work was incorrect. Often times they would look over
what they had done and scan for any mathematical errors first. If they saw nothing, then
they would begin to rework the problem with a different strategy or review their notes in
order to see if they had missed something along the way.

On the other hand, students who were struggling with the material often felt
defeated when they would find out that they had not correctly solved a problem. If they
did not think that there was any other way to complete the problem other than the method
that they had used, they felt that they could not successfully complete the problem.
Frequently, these students would come to me for help after only one or two responses
from the system indicating that their work was incorrect. Occasionally, they had made a
mathematical error, but more often than not I found that they had implemented a strategy
that could not produce a correct solution to the problem.

The LON-CAPA system does provide a means of giving “hints” to the students.
These hints are usually simple statements along with feedback to the student. As such,
they are usually quite general and are reminders of what strategy should yield a correct
answer to the problem. The problem author must program these hints. Since I had
imported problems from within the system, I was not able to amend them in such a way
as to make hints available to students.

Three students addressed the issue of tolerance. This was a very specific problem
in the units being taught. The teacher has the ability to set the numerical tolerance for
what is considered to be correct answers by the system. This is done within the
parameters page of the system and the tolerance is set as a percentage of the correct

answer. I set the tolerance in the homework at one percent. It has been my experience

43

that rarely are students off by more than this as a function of rounding or not rounding a
number. The issue came up in problems where the author had set the value for the
acceleration due to gravity at 9.81 m/sz. As a habit, I use 9.8 m/s2 in my class. As a
result, most of my students do the same thing. Since .01 is more than one percent of
9.81, students who performed the work correctly ofien ended up with answers that were
outside of the given tolerance accepted by the system. This was remedied by posting a
message on the discussion board that 9.81 m/s2 needed to be used for the acceleration due
to gravity for those problems.

Although my strategy was to implement the LON-CAPA system into my class
with the least privileged student in mind in terms of Internet access, the students still
brought up the issue of inadequate access at home as a weakness of the LON-CAPA
system. Even with the techniques and strategies that I discussed with the students for
maximizing the resources that were provided for them, those students with faster lntemet
access were able to better utilize the feedback and communication features of the system.

For example, I would often log into the system and open the chat room to see who
was currently working on the problem sets and if there was anything I could help them
with. Obviously I could not provide that same level of service to students who were
working off their hard copies and entering their answers at a later time. And those
students who did log on with a slower connection such as a standard dial up connection
found it difficult to participate in online discussions, as their inputs were not as timely as
those of students with faster connections. In this respect, they seemed to “lag behind” the

conversations that people were having.

44

The issue of problems sets (Appendices A and B) being harder on the system than
those problems that l assigned to them as daily work out of the textbook is more of a
perceived issue with my curriculum than with the LON-CAPA system. The level of
difficulty of the LON-CAPA problems is where I believe they‘should be in this class.
Many of the problems require the students to incorporate what they have learned in
previous units as well as mathematical techniques that they have learned in their
prerequisite math courses in order to successfully complete the problems. The problems
that are published in the textbook and in the ancillary materials are generally more
straightforward in nature. These problems only test the student’s ability to utilize the
most recent topic and the solution rarely involves the use of any skills beyond those that
were learned in a beginning algebra course. My response to the students when posed
with these complaints is that the work that they do in the LON-CAPA homework sets is
more indicative what I feel they should be able to complete in order to meet the
objectives of the course. Regardless of the small number of responses, this is still an
important issue as perceived separation between instruction and assessment can have a

potentially negative impact on the class (Gulikers, Bastiaens, & Kirschner, 2004).

45

DISCUSSIONS
1: TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS

Outside of the problem of numerical tolerance that was addressed in the

' Weaknesses of the System section of the Evaluations, the LON-CAPA homework sets
seemed to operate quite smoothly. This was not the case for the quizzes that were
administered through the LON-CAPA system.

There were two problems that occurred with the trigonometry online quiz
(Appendix G). The first problem that some students encountered was the result of the
students entering into a course that was no longer valid. Over the course of the summer,
the LON-CAPA support staff at Michigan State University had removed the server that
had been installed in the Grand Ledge school district. As such, I thought that the course
information would be placed in the Michigan State University domain (msu), as that was
where the server was physically located and where the course information was stored.
However, the LON-CAPA staff had kept the Grand Ledge Public Schools (glps) domain
active and as such, all Grand Ledge courses were stored under that domain.
Unfortunately, I had already started the students in the msu domain.

By the end of the first unit, prior to this study, the problem had been corrected and
the course and student information had been moved to the glps domain. However, some
students continued to enter the incorrect domain when logging into the system. This
problem became quite evident during the quiz, as I had not yet entered the quiz into the

system before the course information had been moved into the glps domain. Those

46

students who logged into the msu domain found that there was no quiz available to them.
This problem was easily rectified by having the student exit out of the system and then
log back into it using the correct domain (glps).

The second problem was a bug that occurred within the system. For a reason that
I was unable to determine at the time, some students encountered a very odd problem.
The system would display a problem that was not theirs. The students would then
complete the problem and submit it. The computer would compare their answer against
the actual correct answer for the problem that they should have seen and inform the
students that their answer was incorrect. At that point, the system would display their
actual problem and the students would be able to continue on from there. The root of the
problem lies with the caching function of the school district’s server. If the problem page
was stored in the server’s cache then it may have called up a previous problem instead of
bringing up the actual problem, as the purpose of the cache is store recently viewed pages
on a computer’s hard drive so that they can be recalled faster than if they had to be
downloaded from the Internet each time. Once the student entered an incorrect answer, it
would access the actual problem as now the page had changed to indicate that they had
entered an incorrect answer and the cached page was no longer valid.

What concerned the students was the fact that for this quiz, I had reduced the
number of attempts that the system would accept down from the twenty attempts that I
allow for the homework problems down to three attempts for the quiz. My reasoning for
this was that with twenty attempts the students would be able to simply take the sine,

cosine, or tangent of everything they saw in the problem until they hit upon the correct

47

answer. As such, many students were concerned that they had used one of their three
answers on a problem that was not correctly displayed.

My solution to this was to accept one written answer from the students for whom
this problem had occurred. This way, they still had three attempts at the correct problem.
Since I have access to all of the problems and solutions, I would be able to manually
grade the solutions and they would not be penalized for a shortcoming in the system. Of
all of the students who approached me with this problem, only one student handed in a
written copy of the work for me to grade. The rest of the students were able to determine
the correct answers with their remaining two attempts. Since there is instant feedback in
regards to whether their answer is right or wrong, the students were able to walk out,
certain that even though they had lost an attempt, they still were not penalized, as they
knew that the problems had been completed correctly. All of these technical problems
were minimized as the day progressed, as I was able to make preemptive announcements
concerning these issues at the beginning of the period for the third and sixth period
courses.

With the LON-CAPA based projectile motion quiz (Appendix H), problems arose
when the students tried to access the quiz set. Even though they had no difficulties
accessing the LON-CAPA system, they were not able to gain access to the quiz set. I
found it even more frustrating that I was able to access the quiz set. The rest of the class
period was spent trying to get students into the quiz without any success.

Over the weekend I reviewed the quiz problems from within the construction
space. After reviewing the published pages I found that the problem was in the level of

access that I had granted for the quiz set. When I developed the problems and resource

48

materials for the quiz, I had published them in such a way as to only give access to
myself. Publishing them at this level of accessibility allowed me to view the problems as
they would actually appear and make changes to the problems. At the same time the
problems were inaccessible to the rest of the system users, students and instructors both.
This would prevent any other instructors from discovering these problems within the
resource space and implementing them into their online courses before I was satisfied
that the problems were complete and error free. Since I saw no indication from inside the
course that they are only accessible to me, I had forgotten to change the level of access to
grant all users access to the problems. This explains why I was still able to pull up the
quiz set without any problems while none of the students were able to do so.

An additional problem arose due the way in which I had coded the problems.
There were three questions that I wanted to tie into the QuickTime movie. The only way
that I had found to include all three pieces into the movie and still have the movie
accessible to the students while working on all three of the problems was to code the
three problems as if they were multiple responses to a single problem. The issue with
this is that the system would grade all three responses of the problem at once and only
indicate to the user that the problem was correct if all three parts of the problem were
correct. If any of the three responses were incorrect, then the system would simply
indicate to the student that the problem was wrong. It would not show which of the
responses was wrong. This was a considerable source of anxiety for the students as once
again, I had reduced the number of tries and it was only being given during the class
period, time was a factor. During the period I announced to the class that they would be

allowed to turn in one written copy of the work if they did not get the quiz set correct

49

within the allotted tries. This was once again somewhat counterproductive as one of the
advantages of the LON-CAPA system is that the system grades the sets for the instructor
and I was yet again taking home a stack of papers to grade.

The results for LON-CAPA based projectile motion quiz were not as promising as
those of the previous online quiz over trigonometry functions. As described earlier, the
quiz required the students to take data with a st0pwatch fiom a QuickTime movie
embedded into the quiz problem set. Many of the students struggled to get accurate data
with the stopwatch. I had increased the tolerance that the system would accept for a
correct answer from the typical one percent that I usually used to ten percent in order to
make up for any discrepancies in stopwatch use. As I tested the quiz I found that I was
never more that ten percent away fi'om the actual time of 2.25 seconds for the ball as it
fell to the ground. Many students had difficulties seeing the screen and were not able to
start at the appropriate time or stopped the watch too early. In either case, they
consistently measured times of only 2.00 seconds for the flight of the ball and as such,
their data took them outside of the range of the system was programmed to accept.

Although the results for the LON-CAPA based quiz seemed less of an indicator of
student performance than the lab-based quiz, it should be noted that the lab-based quiz
was one that I have administered for each of the seven years that I have taught physics. I
have had the opportunity to anticipate many of the problems that occur when
administering this quiz. The LON-CAPA quiz was administered for the first time and
many problems occurred that I had not anticipated. I feel these problems provided
distractions that kept the students from focusing all of their attention strictly on the

objectives that were being tested at the moment.

50

2: INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES AND ONLINE LECTURE NOTES

With the cart of laptop computers located in my classroom, students had access to
the Internet and the class materials located on the LON-CAPA system. I found this level
of access to be sometimes troublesome throughout the course of the study. Since
textbook problems that I gave the students to do were not graded, they were often
ignored. These problems were identical for everyone, enabling me to work through the
problems with the students and have everyone follow along. When working on the
section of the vector addition unit that dealt specifically with vector addition, perhaps the
most important section of the unit, I found that students were more concerned with the
problems that are going to be counted in the grade book than those problems that were
given to them for their own enrichment. Those students who did elect to spend the class
period working on the handwritten vector addition problem set cited that they believed
me that mastering these problems would benefit them. Some of them even said that by
mastering this skill first, completing the LON-CAPA homework set would be much
easier to do.

This problem persisted throughout the unit. When I asked if the students had any
difficulties with the enrichment problems concerning inclined surfaces, most of the
students admitted that they had not completed the assignment. When I queried the class
why they had not completed the assignment, most of them cited that they had spent the
class period working on their LON-CAPA set instead of the three enrichment problems

that I had given them. The students immediately gravitated towards those problems that

51

were to be graded and allowed the problems that were given to them in order to
strengthen their abilities in the material at hand to fall to the wayside.

Eventually, I had to deal with this by taking choices away fi'om the students when
I felt that one option best served them. As they began to review for the vector addition
test, I did not give them the choice to work on the review or the LON-CAPA set. The
computers remained locked up in the cabinet and the students had only the review
problems to work on. While working on the “fly ball” project in the projectile motion
unit, several students opted to spend their time working on their LON-CAPA homework
sets, rather than work on their projects. Since it was quite possible that they may have
had the projects completed by that time, I gave then the option to work on either, but I
made it clear that there was a definite hierarchy in terms of whom I would help in the
class.

A similar problem occurred with the use of the online lecture notes. My intention
was that they be made available to students wherever they might be, I found that the
students’ reliance on these notes bordered on abuse and I believe at times it was
counterproductive: they were not taking their own notes. I had stressed to the students
the importance of keeping written lecture notes to help reinforce what was being
discussed during the class period. In talking with the students, I found that the students
who had the most positive things to say about the lecture notes were the students who
used the online lecture notes as a basis for the notes that they took in class. This is
similar to Kozma’s findings where students participating in online coursework had
positive attitudes towards the class and acquire new knowledge, but did not necessarily

improve their study habits (2003).

52

I have noticed that the implementation of the LON-CAPA system has
significantly changed how I present material in my class. There are obvious advantages
to having all of the lecture notes available to the instructor at all times. Before
administering the LON-CAPA based trigonometric functions quiz I had to go over
information that was not covered in the previous day’s lecture. I found that a great benefit
to having the notes online is that when I am unable to complete all of a given section in
one day, it is easy to bring up the notes and backtrack a bit in order to bring the students
up to pace on the material that was covered the previous. Since they are the same notes
that were seen the day before, the students find the material to be familiar and the lesson
seems much more continuous, even though it has been broken up over the course of two
lecture periods.

My approach to the course material has changed as well. With the system grading
the students’ assignments, I found that I was less concerned with the actual answers to
problems and instead, I focused on sound reasoning and procedures more than I had done
in the past. As observed by other LON-CAPA users, the system had now taken over the
role of evaluator (Morrisey, Kashy, Tsai 1995) and the typical student — content
interaction of one-way information delivery has been supplemented with roles of
reinforcement and motivator. This freed me from answering questions of “What’s the
answer?” and allowed me to focus on questions such as, “Why are these relationships
so?” and “How do these concepts tie to each other?” In turn, this also shifted the students
from the role of passive learners to that- of active learners, which has been linked to
creating more student-centered classes (Seng & Al-Hawamdeh, 2001; Lederrnan & Niess,

2000).

53

When discussing the procedure for adding vectors together, many of the students
who had already completed a FST, prerequisite math course, were quick to observe that
mathematically, these vectors could be added together in a single step using either the
law of sines or the law of cosines. I had to stress to those students that I would insist that
they stick to simply using the trigonometry functions that we had already discussed. The
reason for this was that although these techniques are a time saver for students, in the
coming units, they would need to be adept at breaking vectors into their components.
Since I was able present this as a way of helping the students, most of them were able to

see this my way and were more than happy to cooperate.

3: COURSE MANAGEMENT

Even though it was not a primary goal in the implementation of the LON-CAPA
system, after having read the literature (Morrissey, Kashy, & Tsai, 1995), I had hoped
that I would save time that was normally spent grading student work and providing
feedback. However, I do not believe that the implementation of the LON-CAPA system
in my class has saved me any time overall. However, the time that I spend on my class is
far better spent since its implementation. The hour or so each night that I normally spent
grading homework and preparing lecture notes for the next day was now spent online,
conversing with students and helping them. I tried to maintain a system where I would
only answer questions about a particular problem once. After that point, I would instruct
those that had learned how to successfully complete the problem to help others who had

questions on it. This was not always effective, but it did allow me to address a greater

54

number of problems. Following this policy helped to promote positive interaction
between the students through the LON-CAPA system.

Even though no one had identical problems, having one set assigned to the teacher
was also an advantage as it allowed me to work through my problems with the class as
examples of how they could solve theirs. This strategy worked particularly well on long
and difficult problems such as the “volleyball” problem in the projectile motion
homework set (Appendix B). In addition to the level of difficulty involved in this
problem, there was a fair amount of anxiety on the students’ part as there were six parts
to this question. After going through the problem with a few students online, I decided
that it would be far more efficient to announce to the group that I would go over an
example problem like this one the next day in class. This worked out well as it allowed
the students to relax a bit on that problem and it freed me up to answer questions about a

greater variety of problems that night.

4: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE GOALS

Technology has now become a tool to be used by teachers to improve their classes
with improved content and ramped up delivery of that content through improved channels
of communication. In reference to the dilemma posed by the administrator at the
beginning of this paper, is this an implementation of technology simply for the sake of
implementing technology into the classroom? In terms of the numerical data in this
study, there are no conclusive results to report. Although subjectively it seems that the

trends support the use of LON-CAPA to master course objectives, statistically speaking,

55

the differences were not significant. The students who performed well on the online
homework sets had greater success in learning the course objectives than those who did
not perform as well on the homework sets. But the differences between those who did or
did not learn the objectives were not significant given the size 'of the sample of students.
Of those students who did not successfully complete elements within the online
homework set, those who made the most attempts did perform better on the post-test
assessment. But once again, the difference was not significant. The information
provided on the surveys indicated that the students recognized the strengths of the LON-
CAPA system, specifically the availability of materials both at school and at home, and
the ability to communicate effectively with everyone enrolled in the course as well as
with the instructor.

However, this system has addressed the needs of the students when they are not in
the classroom. By incorporating the class lecture notes into the system, the material is
both important and relevant. The students are also given greater autonomy and
responsibility for their own learning with the format of the homework sets. With the
communication features, the students maintain a voice in the class. And the teacher
feedback provides the teacher with a means of continually adapting the course to meet the
needs of the student. These are all features that have been identified as crucial to the
success of online course management (Simonson & Schlosser, 2004)

The teacher needs to address what he or she wishes to gain by implementing such
a tool in their class and then develop strategies for adapting the system to meet those
goals. My goals were to increase the availability of information and resources to the

students, especially those who were absent from the class. In order to meet these goals, I

56

first created a framework in the system that was consistent with what the students see in
class. The units were divided into the same content. The homework was divided into the
.PDF files that they could download in case they had missed a handout and the online
homework set that would be graded at the end of the unit. Since this was the same for
each unit, the students knew what the expectations of them were and could plan
appropriately.

Also, I believe that the communication features, while invaluable, must be
promoted within the classroom in order for them to be effective. Furthermore, they need
to be shown the advantages of using these tools. Once students realize that they are no
longer on an island when they are in the system, they are much more apt to make use of
the communication tools.

In the coming years, I intend to further implement the LON-CAPA system into
my physics class. Although there are a few flaws that need to be edited out of the online
lecture notes, once these are complete, the notes will be published system wide so that
they will be available to all of the system teachers. Based on feedback from other high
school teachers at the most recent LON-CAPA conference (2005), there is a fairly high
demand for such material. I would also like to further incorporate the online homework
assignments into the content of the online lecture notes. One of the most frequently
asked questions by the students was what problems should they be able to solve at the
end of each class. Using a feature called sequencing, resource materials, such as the
online lecture notes can be tied directly to relevant homework problems. I believe that
this would serve two purposes as it would not only allow students to see which problems

are within their abilities at any given point in a unit, but it would also help to motivate the

57

students to work on problems earlier in the unit. As it is right now, I believe that many
students wait until just before they are due to work on the homework sets, since that is
when they know that they have covered all the material in class.

The last possibility that I would like to investigate is the implementation of such a
system with one of the current web-based district management software packages, such
as Apple’s PowerSchool. PowerSchool already incorporates features that allow teachers
to link assignments to the parent and student viewer sides of the program. It would be
ideal if students were able to access resource materials and their particular problem sets
from within this program so they could see how the completion of I each assignment
directly affects their grade within a class. Such access to information would give the
student an unprecedented level of control over his or her personal outcomes within a class

and would help to create a model of education that centered about the student.

58

APPENDICES

59

APPENDIX A

LON-CAPA HOMEWORK PROBLEMS

VECTOR ADDITION

60

J eff Hackbom - Herzl-{born Physics 2004/05 1
Homework 2

Due date: Fri 12 Nov 2004 11:59:59 PM EST

Vectors and Scalars

A flea pulls on a puck with force 8 uN at an angle of 90°. Another flea pulls on the puck with
force 1 [IN at an angle of 450°. (See diagram for angle scale.) Draw vectors on the diagram to
scale representing the forces. Carefully add the vectors tip-to-tail. (Use a ruler.) (a) What is the
magnitude of the net. force on the puck? (b) At. what angle is the net force? (Answer in ° using the
angle scale provided.)

1050 ‘20: 750

 

120° ‘1' .60..
135° ' f c ,.-45°
165°’-. . -.7*. ..~Q”f ,.15°
"1650-? In \ ..;:;-150
“1505.1. 'N g L ‘. ,‘7'1—30°
4353 - f L45°

~120°‘ ~ 1

-1 050 _9‘ .2750
l l
l l

Tries 0/ 20

 

 

 

 

61

Jeff Hackbom - Hackbom Physics ‘200-‘1/05 l
Homework 2

 

Due date: 1*‘1'i 1:2 Nov 2004 11:59:59 I’M EST

Each of the following situations shows two or more force vectors. You are to determine the direction
of the sum of the forces. If the direction is exactly along one of the axes, (those that axis (+x.-
x.+y,—y). Otherwise select. the ('nrarlrant. (l,ll.lll, or IV) or zero if the net force is O. The length of
the V(‘('I.()I' is given in parentheses.

 

 

+31
11 l l
l
_, I”. ___.._.+,.
”I IV
-y
Choir-es: +x, -x. +y. -y. I, II, III, IV, zero.
(2)
(2
A. ’1
f
i
B. I
‘ (2)
(2) I I 7
C.

You are correct. Your receipt is 1(30-2076

62

Jeff Hackbom - Hackbom Physics 2004/05 1
Homework 2

 

Due date: Fri 12 Nov 2004 11: 59.. ‘39 PM EST
A river is to be crossed by a boy using a row boat.

 

Assume that the water has uniform velocity, represented above by the vector labeled D. The rowing
speed of the boy and a set of possible orientation of his boat are also shown. Select the direction
(1.11., J, or C, or ...) in order to cross the river in the shortest time. (Notice that the number of tries
is reduced.)

You are correct. Your re(eipt is 160—2934
For which 1owing orientation will the boy land on the opposite shore directly across from his starting

position, neither upstream or downst1eam. (Notice that the number of tries is reduced.)

You are correct. Your receipt is 160—3520

Select an answer for each below

Choices. Greater than, Less than, Equal to.

For an observer on shore. the speed of the boat for H is for A.
Time to row across for .I is for B.

Time to row across for F is for J.

The distance traveled in crossing for K is for H.

91.0097?

Time to row across for C is for B.

You are correct. Your receipt is 160-3668

63

Jeff Hackbom - Hackbom Physics 2004/05 1
Homework 2

Due date: Fri 12 Nov 2004 11:59:59 PM EST
A canoeist can paddle. at 4.97 Iii/s in still water. He starts to paddle across a river, but is
pushed downstrcmn by a current of 11.68 111/s. What is the resultant speed of the canoe?

l I

You are correct. Your receipt is 160-3057

 

64

Jeff Hackbom — Hackbom Physics 200:1/05 l
Homework 2

Due date: Fri 12 Nov 2004 11:59:59 PM EST

Vector Addition/Substraction .

An object having velocity 1?}, undergoes an acceleration ('1' as depicted in the figure. The acceleration
lasts for a definite nonzero period of time.

a

 

V0

 

>

Which of the following vectors could represent the velocity vector after acceleration? Determine for
each of the following graphs whether it. is correct or incorrect.

Choices: Correct. Incorrect.

 

.5

—-——-———>

E. It is impossible to answer because the duration of the acceleration is not specificd.

You are correct. Your receipt is 160-150!)

65

Jefl' Hackbom - Hackbom Physics 2004,“)5 1
Homework 2

Due date: Fri 12 Nov 2004 11:59:59 PM EST

Harbor Problem

At the entrance channel of a harbor, the tidal current has a velocity of 5.14 km/ hr in a direction
15.5° south of east. Suppose a ship caught. in this current has a speed of 18.4 km /hr relative to the
water. If the helmsman keeps the bow of the ship ain'ied north, what will he the speed of the ship
relative to the ground?

l I

You are correct. Your receipt is 160-1503

 

66

Jeff Hackbom — l-lackhorn Physics ‘2004/05
Homework 2

Due date: Fri 12 Nov 2004 11:59:.‘79 Pill EST

Data:
01 = 37.3 02 = 145.6
A = 4.3 cm B = 7.2 cm
W
B

  

 

91 ,x
With the diagram and the above. data answer these questions:
What is the x component of vector A?

l I

You are correct. Your receipt is 160-3124
What is the y component of vector A?

l J

You are correct. Your receipt is 160-2159
What is the x component of vector I3?

l I

You are correct. Your receipt is 160-3045
What. is the y component of vector B?

You are correct. Your receim is IUD-3205
What is the magnitude of vector (A + B)?

l l

You are correct. Your receipt. is 160-2540

 

 

 

 

 

67

Jeff Hackbom - Hackbom Physics 200~1/05 1
Homework 2

Due date: Fri 12 Nov 2004 11 :59:59 PM EST

Raindrops

On a rainy day, raindrops fall with a wrtical velocity of 10.0 m/s. If a car drives through the rain
at 71.0 kin/hr. what is the magnitude of the velocity of the raindrops relative to the car?

I I

You are correct. Your receipt is 160-1015 ,
At what angle are the. raindrops falling,~ relative to the. can"? Assume the direction the car is headed
is 0° and down is 90°.

L 1

You are correct. Your receipt is 100-‘2501

 

 

68

Jeff Hackbom - Hackbom Physics 2004/05
Homework 2

Due date: Fri 12 N (m 2004 11.25.9371) PM EST
A grmip of kids is on a hike. They hike 17.4. km east, then turn and walk 15.5 km north.

 

A. What is there. distance from their ori rinal )osition?
ta

 

You are correct. Your receipt is 160-3481 .
B. What is the angle of direction to their position? I I

 

 

You are correct. Your receipt is “Kl—4067

69

Jeff Hackbom — Haekl‘ngun Physics 200-1/05 l
Homework 2

Due date: Fri 12 Nov 2004 .I 1:593" .9 PM E871 ‘
Suspension Wires
An object at rest is suspended from two strings (A and 13) as shown in the diagram, with A shorter
than B. The object pulls on the point 0 with a force of 20 N. Each of the strings also exerts a {cure
on the Point. O. The angle between the strings at. () is 90°.

I

 

 

Which of the statements l.‘)el(.)w are true / false?

Choiees: True, False.
A. The force exerted by A on point 0 points downward and to the right.
B. The vector sum of the forces exerted by A and 13 points straight up.
C. The magnitude of the vector sum of the forces exerted by A and B is less than ‘20 N.
I). 'J‘he magnitude of the force ('i’Xt'FI‘lCd by B on point 0 must be smaller than that of A.

E. The magnitude of the force exerted by B may be larger than ‘20 N.

You are correct. Your receipt: is 160-1811

70

Jeff Hackbom - Hackbom Physics 2004/05 1
Homework 2

Due date: Fri 12 Nov 2994 11:39:59 I’AI EST

Mast Problem

The figure below shows three (stick) people pulling down via ropes, each with 206 N, on the top of a
mast 20.0 m tall. If they stand at. ccural distances of 18.1 in from the base of the mast and at equal
distances from each other, i.e. 120° apart, what. is the not three that. they exert on the mast?

 

 

 

L 1

You are correct. Your receipt is 160-1807

71

APPENDIX B

LON-CAPA HOMEWORK PROBLEMS

PROJECTILE MOTION

72

Jeff Hackbom - Hackbom Physics 2004 /05 1
H omework 3

Due date: Fri 03 Dec 2004 11:59:59 PM EST

Horizontal Launch 1 (Helicopter)

A helicopter is flying in a straight line over a level field at a censtant speed of 18.2 m/s and at a
constant altitude of 17 m. A package is ejected horizontally from the helicopter with an initial speed
of 13.8 m/s relative to the helicopter, and a direction (i)pp(7)sit.e to the helicopter’s motion. Find the
initial speed of the package relative to the ground.

l l
'I‘r‘ies ()/2()

What is the horizontal distance beta-man the helicopter and the package at the instant that the
package strikes the grmind?

Tries 0/20
What angle between 0° and 90° does the velocity vector of the package make with the ground at
the instant before impact, as seen from the ground?

| l

'I'I‘ics 0/20

 

 

 

73

Jeff Hackbom — Hackbom Physics 2004/05 1
Homework 3

Due date: Fri 03 Dec 2004 11:50:50 I’M ES’I'

Horizontal Launch 2 (Stone) '
A stone thrown horizontally from a height. of 10.0 In hits the ground at a. distance of 10.5 11]. Calculate

the initial speed of the ball.

I l

'1'1'ies 0/20

 

Calculate the speed of the ball as it hits the ground.

'I'ries 0/20

 

74

Jeff Hackbom - Hackbom Physics 200-‘1/05 1
Homework 3

Due date: Fri 03 Dec 2004 11:59:591’M EST

Simple Projectile ,
A projectile is fired at. 275° above the horizmital. Its initial speed is equal to 102.5 m/s. Assume
that the free-fall acceleration is constant. throughout and that the effects of the air can be. ignored.

W hat is the maximum height reached by the projectile'.’

Yi‘ies 0/‘20

 

At what time after being fired does the projectile reach this maximum height?

Tries 0 ,/ ‘20

 

75

Jeff Hackbom - Hackbom Physics ‘2004-1/05 1
Homework 3

Due date: Fri 03 Dec 2004 11:59:59 PM EST

Simple Projectile

A small steel ball bearing with a mass of 13 g is on a short. compressed Spring. When aimed vertically
and suddenly released, the spring sends the bearing to a height of 1.33 [11. Calculate the horizontal
distance the ball will travel if the same spring is aimed 39° from the horizontal.

L l

was (),/20

 

76

Jeff Hackbom - Hat-khorn l’hysirs 2llll-l/(l5 .l
Homework 3

Due date: 14’1‘1'. 03 UPI 2004 11:59:59 Pill EST
Simple Projectile (Golfball)

A golf ball hit with a 7-iron soars into the air at 380° with a. speed {of 55.5 m/s. Overlooking the
effect of the atmosphere on the hall. determine tho. hall’s range.

l |

Tries ”/20

 

Deteriniiw when the lmll will strikv the ground.

l l

Tries “/20

 

77

Jeff Hackbom - Hackhorn Physics 2004 / US 1
Homework 3

Due date: Fri ()3 Dec 2004 11:37.0:F9 PM EST

Simple Projectile (Salmon)

Salmon, swimming up the Maser river to their spawning grounds, leap over all sorts of obstacles.
The unofficial salmon-altitude record is an amazing 3.36 In jump. Assuming the fish took off at
45.()°, what was its speed on emerging from the water? Ignore friction.

l l

'l'n'es (l/‘ZO

 

78

Jeff Hackbom - Hackbom Physics 2004/05 1

Homework .3"

Due date: Fri ()3 Dec 2004 11 :59:59 PM EST

Catapult

A catapult on a cliff launches a large round rock towards a ship on the ocean below. T he rock leaves
the catapult from a height. H = 34.0 m above sea level, directed at. an angle 0 = 46.5° above the
hm'izontal, and with a speed c = 27.5 m/s. Assuming that air friction can be neglected, calculate
the horizontal distance D traveled by the projectile.

 

 

tf—“i

Tries 0/20

79

Jeff Hackbom - Hackbom Physics 2004/05 1
Homework 3

Due date: Fri ()3 Dec 2004 11:59:89 RM EST

Medieval Castle

Assume you are a Medieval knight attacking a castle with a cannon. The ball leaves the camion
with a speed of 34.9 m/s. The barrel‘s angle with respect to the ground is 39.1°, and you make a
perfect hit on the tyrant’s chamber which is at the same level as the cannon’s muzzle. What is the
time of flight of the cannon ball?

 

 

 

 

'Ilries ()/‘20

80

Jeff Hackbom - Hackbom Physics 2()(H/(I)5 1
Homework 3

 

Due date: Fri 03 Dee 2004 11:59:59 PM EST

2D and 3D Motions

The launching speed of a certain pl‘0j(‘-‘ctile is 6.2 times the speed it has at its maximum height.
Calculate the elevatiim angle at lzumchii'lg.

l 1

731129 0/20

 

81

Jeff Hackbom - I'lackhorn Physics 2004 / ()5 1

Homework 3

Due date: Fri 03 Dec 2004 11:59:59 PM EST

2D and 3D Motions

A ball is thrown horizontally from a height of 17.79 m and hits the ground with a speed that is 5.0
times its initial speed. What was the initial speed?

l l

'm'cs 0/20

 

82

Jeff Hackbom - l'Iackborn Physics ‘2001‘1/05 1
Homework 3

 

Due date: Fri 03 Dee 2004 11:.’9:5.‘) PM EST

2D and 3D Motions (Cliff)

A stone is aimed at a cliff of height. h. with an initial speed of {)0 m / s directed 30° above the horizontal,
as shown in the Figure below. The stone strikes at A, 7.80 s after launching. VVl'iat is the height of
the cliff?

 

 

l J
'I'nics ()/2()

What is the maximum height H reached above the ground?

l 1

Wires 0/20

 

83

Jeff Hackbom - Hackbom Physics 2001 /05 1
Homework 3

 

Due date: Fri 03 Dec 2004 11:59:59 PM EST

2D and 3D Motions (Volleyball) .

A regulation volleyball court is L = 18.0 m long and a regulation volleyball net is d = 2.43 m high.
A volleyball player strikes the ball a height h = 1.53 m directly above the back line, and the hall’s
initial velocity makes an angle 6 = 40° with respect to the ground (see the. figure). At what initial
speed must the ball be hit so that it just barely makes it over the net? (Assume the volleyball is
hit so that its path is parallel to the side-line as seen from an observer directly above the court, and
that the volleyball is a point object.)

 

 

 

 

l I

You are correct. Your receipt is 160—2201
What is the maximum height. above the court reached by the. ball in this case?

l J

You are correct. Your receipt is 160—2847
At what initial speed must the ball be hit so that it lands directly on the. opponent's back line?

l J

You are correct. Your receipt is 160-2095
What is the maximum height reached by the ball in this case?

L I

You are correct. Your receipt is 160-2330
In volleyball, it is often advantageous to serve the ball as hard as possible. If you want the ball to

land in the opponent's court, however, there is an upper limit on the initial ball speed for a given
contact point. At this maximum spa-2d, the ball just barely makes it over the net and then just.
barely lands in bounds on the back line of the opponent’s court. For the contact point given in the
previous problems, what is this maximum initial speed?

i l

You are correct. Your receipt is 160-2916
If you hit the ball at this maximum) speed. at what angle should you strike it in order to make sure

the ball lands in bounds?

l 1

You are correct. Your receipt is 160-2263

 

 

 

 

 

84

Jeff Hackbom - Hackbom Physics 201.):1/05 1
Homework 3

Due date: Fri 03 Dec 2004 11:59:59 PM EST

2D and 3D Motions (Horse Jump)

During a famous jump in Richmond (Virginia) in 1903 the horse Heathiivrbloom jumped over an
obstacle 3.1 m high while covering a horizontal distance of 8.3 m. At what angle with respect. to the
horizontal did the horse leave the ground?

[ l

Tries (l/‘Zil

 

85

Jeff Hackbom - Hackbom Physivs ‘2004/05 1
Homnwm'k 3

 

Due date: Fri {)3 Dar: 2004 11:59:59 PM EST

2D and 3D Motions (Basketball)

A basketball player throws the ball at a 35° angle above the horizontal to a hoop which is l()(L-.atod a
horizontal distance L = 2.2 m from the point. of release and at; a height: h. :2 0.3 111 above it. \Vhat
is the required speed if the basketball is to rem-h the hoop?

x”-h‘\\

\\

 

 

 

'I'nias 0/20

86

Jeff Hackbom - Haekborn Physics 2004/05 1

H owe-work 3

Due date: Fri 03’ Dec 2004 11:59:59 PM EST

2D and 3D Motions (Baseball)

The center of a baseball of diameter 9.00 (7111 is 1.270 In vertically above the plate when it is hit.
The blast sends it off at an angle of 300° above the horizontal with an unknown initial speed. The
outfield fence is 101.0 m away and 11.20 m tall: the ball just Clears it. Ignoring aerodynamic effects,
what was the initial speed of the baseball?

l I

Wish“ O/‘ZU

 

87

Jefl' Hackbom - Hackbom Physics 2004/05 1
Homework 3

 

Due date: Fri ()3 Dec 2004 11:59:39 PM [55'1"

The soccer goal is 20.31 m in front of a soccer player She kicks the ball giving it a speed of 18.78
m/s at an angle of 26.47 degrees from the horizontal. If the goalie is standing exactly in front of the
net. find the speed of the ball just as it reaches the goalie. [ l

 

 

mm ()/20

88

Jeff Hackbom - l'lackborn Physics 2004/05
Homcumrk 3!

 

Due date: F77 (H Dec 2004 11:50:59 PM' IL'b'T
Height

 

A snowball is launched horizontally from the top of a building at v
= [0 m/s. If it. lands (l r 41.5 meters from the bottom. how high (in
m) was the building?

Tries 0/20

89

Jeff Hackbom - Hackbom Physics 2004/05

Homework 3

Doc date: Fri 0.3’ Dec 2004 11:59:50 PAW EST
Speed 2

G.

 
    

A cannon is fired from a cliff 100 m high downward at an angle 0132" with respect to the horizontal.
It the muzzle velocity is 33 m/s. what is its speed (in m/s) when it hits the ground?

Tries 0/ '20

90

APPENDIX C

VECTOR ADDITION UNIT OBJECTIVES

91

Objective 1:
Vectors represent two quantities. In this course, those two quantities are
magnitude and direction. Graphically, vectors are represented by rays, where the
length of the ray is scaled to represent the magnitude and the arrowhead indicates
the direction.

Objective 2:
Scalars only represent one quantity.

Objective 3:
Trigonometry is used to add vectors together so that there directions are taken into
account.

Objective 4:
Vectors follow the commutative property and as such it does not matter in what
order they are added

Objective 5;
All vector measurements must be made with direction in mind. As such, vectors
that are in the same direction affect have an effect on each other.

Objective 6:
Quantities that are orthogonal to each other are independent of each other.

Objective 7:
Vectors that lie in the same direction can be added algebraically.

Objective 8:

When adding vectors, components acting in the same direction are added algebraically.

92

APPENDIX D

PROJECTILE MOTION UNIT OBJECTIVES

93

Objective 1:
Motion in the vertical direction is independent of motion in the horizontal
direction.
Objective 2:
Acceleration due to gravity only affects the vertical component of a projectile’s
motion.
Objective 3:
Horizontal motion is unaffected by gravity. If resistive forces are not taken into
account, the horizontal component of projectile’s velocity remains constant.
Objective 4:
Overall velocity, which is a vector consisting of both magnitude and direction, is
the resultant of the addition of the vertical and horizontal components of the
object’s velocity at that moment.
Objective 5:
If an object lands at the same height from which it was launched, then the trip displays
horizontal symmetry about a vertical line that passes through the highest point in the

objects flight.

94

APPENDIX E

SAMPLE ONLINE LECTURE NOTES

9S

 

I‘vi

" limp“

"H“ , W
I, Unit Notes 2-5
' ’ Equilibriant

 

 

 

Often we will deal with systems that are in
equilibrium, which is to say that there is no
net dynamic in the system. In order for this
to be true, all of the involved must add up
to zero. In terms of the previous section,
this only adds one step to the process,
consider it to be Step 3b.

 

 

 

After finding the resultant, the equilibriant 9
can be found by simply reversing the

direction of the resulant. This is perhaps ‘ySG

easiest to figure by using the components 0%?”

of the resultant. The components of the 39‘

equilibriant have the same magnitude as

those of the resultant, but their signs are

reversed. 9 ‘

 

ININEIdWO) l

‘

X CONIPONENT

It is also worth noting here, that in a case of an equilibrium, where all the vectors add
up to zero, the same must be true of all of their components, which is to say that the net
change in both the x and y directions must be zero.

96

APPENDIX F

PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST ASSESSMENTS

97

Vectors (Pretest)

1. Define what a vector is....
What is represented by a vector? How does it differ from a scalar quantity? How are
vectors represented numerically? How are they represented graphically?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Given the following: Vector A = 12.0 km due North, and Vector B = 18.0 km due
East, answer the following: What is A + B? Is it the same as B + A? (Why or why not?)
Why is you answer not 30.0 km?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

98

3. A man attempts to cross a river in a rowboat. The man is capable of rowing the
boat at 3.5 m/s. The current is travelling due south at 2.6 m/s. If the man rows
due west, how long will it take him to cross the river, given that it is 75 meters
wide at the point where he is crossing?

4. How far downstream will the man in the previous question end up when he gets to
the other side?

5. Relative to the banks of the river, what is the fastest that the man can travel?
What is the slowest that he can travel, assuming that he is always rowing at his
top speed.

6. What direction should he point the boat in order to travel directly across the river?

99

Vectors

1. Define what a vector is....
What i2 represented by a vector? How does it differ from a scalar quantity? How are
vectors represented numerically? How are they represented graphically?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Given the following: Vector A = 12.0 km due North, and Vector B = 18.0 km due
West, answer the following: What is A + B? Is it the same as B + A? (Why or why
not?) Why is you answer not 30.0 km?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. A man attempts to cross a river in a rowboat. The man is capable of rowing the
boat at 3.5 m/s. The current is travelling due south at 2.6 m/s. If the man rows
due west, how long will it take him to cross the river, given that it is 75 meters
wide at the point where he is crossing?

100

4. How far downstream will the man in the previous question end up when he gets to
the other side?

5. Relative to the banks of the river, what is the fastest that the man can travel?
What is the slowest that he can travel, assuming that he is always rowing at his
top speed.

6. What direction should he point the boat in order to travel directly across the river?

101

Vectors

1. Define what a vector is....
What is represented by a vector? How does it differ from a scalar quantity? How are
vectors represented numerically? How are they represented graphically?

 

Vector are items that describe two quantities. In this class vectors have both magnitude

 

and direction. Scalars have only one property.

 

 

Numerically, it takes two quantities to describe a vector, one for the magnitude and one

 

for the direction. Graphically they are described using rays, where the length of the ray

 

corresponds to the magnitude and the arrow indicates the direction.

 

 

2. Given the following: Vector A = 12.0 km due North, and Vector B = 18.0 km due
West, answer the following: What is A + B? Is it the same as B + A? (Why or why
not?) Why is you answer not 30.0 km?

 

21.6 km, 33.7 degrees North of West.

 

Yes this is the same as B +A, because vectors are commutative.

 

The answer is not 30 km (12 km + 18 km) because the two vectors do not lie in the same

 

direction.

 

 

 

 

7. A man attempts to cross a river in a rowboat. The man is capable of rowing the
boat at 3.5 m/s. The current is travelling due south at 2.6 m/s. If the man rows
due west, how long will it take him to cross the river, given that it is 75 meters
wide at the point where he is crossing?

21 seconds

102

8. How far downstream will the man in the previous question end up when he gets to
the other side?

56 meters

9. Relative to the banks of the river, what is the fastest that the man can travel?
What is the slowest that he can travel, assuming that he is always rowing at his
top speed.

Fastest: 6.1 m/s, South

Slowest: .9 m/s, North

10. What direction should he point the boat in order to travel directly across the river?

48 degrees North of West

103

Projectile Motion (Pretest)

1. Given what you’ve learned in the previous unit, what do you think the advantage
would be of breaking up an object’s motion into horizontal and vertical components?

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. How does the acceleration due to gravity affect the motion of a projectile?

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. If a ball rolls off of a 1.3 meter high counter with a velocity of 4.5 m/s, how far
away from the base of the counter will the ball land?

4. What will the ball’s velocity be as it strikes the floor?

104

5. Mr. Hackbom strikes a golfball with a 7-iron, sending it up into the air at a 60
degree angle with the horizontal. The ball land 165 meters away on the green
which is at the same elevation as the point from which the ball was hit. What was
the ball’s velocity as it left the club?

6. A child is lauched out of a tube in a waterpark ride. The child leaves the tube at
8.6 m/s, at an angle of 27 degrees above the horizontal. He lands in the pool, 15.8
meters beyond the point where he was launched. How high above the pool was
he launched?

7. What was his velocity as he struck the pool?

105

Projectile Motion

1. Given what you’ve learned in the previous unit, what do you think the advantage
would be of breaking up an object’s motion into horizontal and vertical components?

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. How does the acceleration due to gravity affect the motion of a projectile?

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. If a ball rolls off of a 1.3 meter high counter with a velocity of 4.5 m/s, how far
away from the base of the counter will the ball land?

4. What will the ball’s velocity be as it strikes the floor?

106

5. Mr. Hackbom strikes a golfball with a 7-iron, sending it up into the air at a 60
degree angle with the horizontal. The ball land 165 meters away on the green
which is at the same elevation as the point from which the ball was hit. What was
the ball’s velocity as it left the club?

6. A child is lauched out of a tube in a waterpark ride. The child leaves the tube at
8.6 m/s, at an angle of 27 degrees above the horizontal. He lands in the pool, 15.8
meters beyond the point where he was launched. How high above the pool was
he launched?

7. What was his velocity as he struck the pool?

107

Projectile Motion (Pretest)

1. Given what you’ve learned in the previous unit, what do you think the advantage
would be of breaking up an object’s motion into horizontal and vertical components?

 

Breaking up the motion into it’s components allows one to isolate the horizontal and

 

vertical motions, which are independent of each other.

 

 

 

 

2. How does the acceleration due to gravity affect the motion of a projectile?

 

Gravity causes the object to accelerate in the vertical direction only. This causes the

 

vertical componenent of an object’s velocity to become more negative.

 

8. If a ball rolls off of a 1.3 meter high counter with a velocity of 4.5 m/s, how far
away from the base of the counter will the ball land?

2.3 meters away from the base

9. What will the ball’s velocity be as it strikes the floor?

6.8 m/s

48 degrees below the horizontal

108

10. Mr. Hackbom strikes a golfball with a 7-iron, sending it up into the air at a 60
degree angle with the horizontal. The ball lands 165 meters away on the green
which is at the same elevation as the point from which the ball was hit. What was
the ball’s velocity as it left the club?

43 m/s

11. A child is lauched out of a tube in a waterpark ride. The child leaves the tube at
8.6 m/s, at an angle of 27 degrees above the horizontal. He lands in the pool, 15.8
meters beyond the point where he was launched. How high above the pool was
he launched?

12.6 meters

12. What was his velocity as he struck the pool?
18 m/s

65 degrees below the horizontal

109

APPENDIX G

LON-CAPA TRIGONOMETRY QUIZ

110

Jeff Hackbom - l'laekhorn Physics ‘200-1/05 1
Trig Functions Quiz

Due date: Sat 21) May 2006' 12:00:01) AM EDT

 

 

 

Match the following:

Choices: A, B, C.
A. Opposite
B. Hypotennse
C. Adjacent

Tries 0/3

 

Given a. triangle wln.)se hypentnse n‘ieasnres 4.1 meters. and has an angle of 63.03 degrees, what is
the length of the side adjacent to the angle?

What is the length of the side opposite the ($3.03 degree angle?

l I

Tries 0/3

 

 

 

Given a right triangle with a leg whose length is 9.7 meters, adjacent to a (53.03 degree angle, what
is the length of the hypotenuse?

l 7

What is the length of the side opposite the 63.03 degree angle?

f l

Tries (l/ 3

 

 

 

Given a triangle with a leg of length 7.8 nn-zters. located opposite a 17.19 degree angle, what is the
length of the hypotenuse?

l i

What is the length of the leg adjacent to the. 17.1.0 degree angle?

l l

Tries ll/Il

 

 

111

APPENDIX I-I

LON-CAPA PROJECTILE MOTION QUIZ

112

Jeff Hackbom - Hackbom Physics ‘2004/05 1
Web Resources 3’

 

Due date: Sun 05 Dec 2004 02:45:00 PIM EST

 

[Use a stopwatch to record the time that the hall was in the. air. (Listen for it. to hit the ground.) ]

 

How fast was the. ball traveling when it left. the parking deck? (Assume that the ball was traveling
l’iorizontally.)

i d

What is the height. of the parking garage?

 

 

 

The ball rolled down a ramp that. makes a 49" angle with the horizontal before leveling off and
rolling oli the parking garage. How long is the ramp?

[ l

Tries U/IO

 

 

\Vatch the film hidow and answer the followin " (‘ nestions.
is l

 

 

 

Choices: True, False.

The initial velocity of the hall in the video is more than that of the hall in the previous video.

B. Neglecting air resistance, if the hall was lighter, it would have traveled farther.
C. If the ramp was half as high, the ball would have landed half as far away.

D. If a second ball had been dropped from the garage at: the same time, the second hall would
have hit the ground after the hall that was launelnad l‘iorizonl‘ally.

'I'I‘ics {l/ '10

113

APPENDIX I

LAB-BASED PROJECTILE MOTION QUIZ

114

Projectile Motion Lab/Quiz

. As a group, move to an unused workstation in the lab area.

. Confirm that all lab equipment is there. It should include the following...
1 marble

1 marble launcher

1 meter stick

1 st0pwatch

. You have 25 minutes to determine as much information as you can about the
flight of the ball from the launcher. Record your information as well as your
procedure for finding it on a separate sheet.

. After 25 minutes, I will be around to collect your marble from your group. I will
also at this time give you a paper target on an elevated surface. You must place
the target as such that when the marble is once again released from the launcher, it
will strike the target on the elevated surface.

. When you group is ready to launch, call me over and I will give you back your
marble and place a piece of carbon paper over the target to record where the
marble hits. You will be given only one launch.

115

APPENDIX J

STUDENT SURVEY

116

Student Survey
How often do you access the LON-CAPA system?
Daily Weekly . Monthly
1 2 3 4 5
Please check all the sections that you frequently view:
Lecture Notes
Daily Assignments (pdf’s in Lecture Notes)
Homework Assignments
Calendar
Labs
Discussion Boards

Web Resources

How useful do you find the online lecture notes to be?

Very Somewhat Not At All
1 2 3 4 5

If you regularly access the online lecture notes, how do you use them?

Supplement to notes taken in class 1
Reference aid to online homework problems 2
In lieu of taking notes in class 3

Do you print off hard copies of the online lecture notes?

How effective do you find each of the online communication methods to be?

Email: Very Somewhat Not At All
Chat Room: Very Somewhat Not At All
General Discussion Board: Very Somewhat Not At All
Homework Discussion: Very Somewhat Not At All
Lecture Note Discussion: Very Somewhat Not At All

117

What do you feel are the strengths and weaknesses of the LON-CAPA system as it is
used in this class?

118

BIBLIOGRAPHY

119

Michael, Steve 0. (1998). Best practices in information technology (IT) management:
insights for K-12 schools’ technology audits. The International J oumal of Educational
Management, Vol. 12, Iss. 6; pg. 277

Lederman, Norman G., Niess, Margaret L. (2000) Technology for technology’s sake or
for the improvement of teaching and learning? School Science and Mathematics, Vol.
100, Iss. 7, pg. 345.

Gulikers, Judith T M, Bastiaens, Theo J, and Kirschner, Paul A. (2004). A Five-
Dimensional Framework for Authentic Assessment. Education TecmmLResegch aLd
Development. Vol. 52. Iss. 3; pg. 67

DiBello, Lilia C. (2005). Are We Addressing the Digital Divide? Issues, Access, and
Real Commitment. Childhood Education, Vol. 81, Iss. 4; pg. 239

Solomon, Gwen (2002). Digital equity: It’s not just about access anymore. Technology
& Learning, Vol. 22, Iss. 9; pg. 18

Brush, Thomas A. (1998). Embedding cooperative learning into the design of integrated
learning systems: Rationale and guidelines. Education Technology, Research gd
Development. Vol. 46, Iss. 3, pg. 5.

Thoennessan, M, Kashy, E, Tsai, Y, and Davis, NE. (1998) Group Decision and
Negotiation. Vol. 8, Iss, 5, pg. 371.

Johnsen, Jane B., Taylor, William D. (2002). The Reduction of Teacher and Student
Autonomy: An Essay on Technology and Classrooms. Encounter: Vol. 15, Iss. 1; pg. 11

Morrissey, D J, Kashy, E, and Tsai, I. (1995). Using computer-assisted personalized
assignments for freshman chemistry. Joumg of Chemical Educeaion. Vol. 72, Iss. 2, pg
141

Simonson, M, Schlosser, C (2004). We Need a Plan: An Instruction Design Approach
for Distance Education Courses. Distance Learning, Vol. 1, Iss. 4, pg. 29.

Seng, L. C, Al-Hawamdeh, S (2001). New mode of course delivery for virtual classroom.
Aslib Proceeding; Vol. 53, Iss. 6, pg. 238.

Charp, S (1999). Classrooms of Tomorrow. THE. Journal. Vol. 26, Iss. 6, pg. 4

Devi, C (2001). Implementing Technology in Eduction. Computimes Malaysia, Jun 18,
2001,pg.1

Stein, D. S, Wanstreet, C. E, Calvin, J, Overtoom, C, Wheaton, J. E, (2005). Bridging the

Transactional Distance Gap in Online Learning Environments. The American Journal of
Distance Education. Vol. 19, Iss. 2, pg. 105.

120

Kearsley, G, Lynch, W (1996). Structural Issues in Distance Education. J oumalof
Education for Business. Vol. 71, Iss. 4, pg. 191

Huang, H—M (2002). Student Perceptions in an Online Mediated Environment.
International Journal of Instructional Media. Vol. 29, Iss. 4, pg. 405.

Kozma, R. B (2003). Technology and Classroom Practices: An International Study.
Journal of Research on TechnologLin Education. Vol. 36, Iss. 1, pg. 1.

S. 487 (2001) TEACH (Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization Act of
2001). 107‘h Congress. 1St Session.

Bobak, R, Cassarino, C, Finley, C (2004). Three Issues in Distance Learning. Distance
Learning. Vol. 1,138. 5, pg. 15.

LON-CAPA resources printed from LON-CAPA@MSU. Licensed under GNU General
Public License

 

SSSSSSSS

11111111111lililiiltlim

93 02736 2551