Beyond bungee jumping: Designing bungee cord to teach hooke’s law in problem-solving lab
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21067/mpej.v8i1.9390Keywords:
bungee jumping, hooke’s law, problem-solving lab, engineering design processAbstract
Physics instruction is critical for helping students develop thinking skills and practical skills through the engineering design process, however, they often find it difficult to apply the concepts of physics to solving real-world problems. Bungee jumping is one of the favorite real-world applications in Hooke’s law as it requires a physics calculation to design the bungee cord required to meet the specified safety criteria. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to investigate 35 high school student’s mastery of concepts on the behavior of the spring through the implementation of an engineering design process activity in the problem-solving laboratory instruction. A pre-experimental study with one group post-test design only was used to outline a problem-solving laboratory instruction and to assess students’ mastery of concepts after the instruction. We found that only 48% of students or fewer were able to make effective use of Hooke’s law to propose a solution and design a model related to the bungee cord problem. Although most students seemed to acquire a reasonable grasp of the energy concepts to solve the quantitative problems, it was found that there was a widespread tendency to improperly apply the conservation of energy concept to the context of jumping from a height in a qualitative problem. However, the physics behind designing bungee cords can be used to engage students in learning Hooke’s law. Such a hands-on pass-fail test of the student solutions provides them with more meaningful real experiences in applying physics calculation to a real solution.
Downloads
References
Bao, L. & Redish, E. F. (2006). Model analysis: representing and assessing the dynamics of student learning. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 2(1), 010103-1 – 010103-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010103
Chiapetta, E. L. & Koballa, T. R. (2010). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools: developing fundamental knowledge and skills - 7th ed. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Etkina, E., Heuvalen, V., Brookes, D. T., & Mills, D. (2002). Role of experiments in physics instruction – A process approach. Phys. Teach. 40(6), 351 – 355. doi: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1511592
Fitzgerald, M. & Brand, L. (2004). Egg bungee jump! A pre-engineering activity based on calculation, risk, failure, success, and serendipity! Applied Science Jan. 15 – 17. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?q=LAWS+AND+OF+AND+NEWTON&pg=7&id=EJ956774
Francis, G. E., Adams J. P., & Noonan, E. J. (1998). Do they stay fixed? Phys. Teach. 36 (6), 488 – 490. doi: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.879933
Gunawan, G., Nisrina, N. Suranti, N. M. Y., Herayanti, L., & Rahmatiah, R. (2018). Virtual laboratory to improve students’ conceptual understanding in physics learning. MISEIC 2018 Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1108, 012049-1 – 012049-6. Doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1108/1/012049
Haryadi, R. & Pujiastuti, H. (2020). Use of bungee jumping with STEM approach to improve science process skills. National Conference on Mathematics Education (NaCoME), Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1480, 1 – 7. Doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1480/1/012073
Heck, A. & Uylings, P. (2020). A Lagrangian approach to bungee jumping. Phys. Educ. 55, pp. 1 – 11. Doi: 10.1088/1361-6552/ab5cdc
Heck, A., Uylings, P., & Kedzierska, E. (2010). Understanding the physics of bungee jumping. Phys. Educ. 45(1), 63 – 72. Doi: 10.1088/0031-9120/45/1/007
Holmes, N. G. & Wieman, C. (2018). Introductory physics labs: we can do better. Physics Today 71(1), 38 – 45. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.3816
Holmes, N. G., Olsen, J., Thomas, J. L., & Wieman, C. E. (2017). Value added or misattributed? A multi-institution study on the educational benefit of labs for reinforcing physics content. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13(1), 020103-1 – 020103-12. Doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.010129
Jolly, A. (2017). STEM by design: strategies and activities for grades 4 – 8. New York: Routledge.
Kagan, D. & Kott, A. (1996).The greater-than-g acceleration of a bungee jumper. Phys. Teach. 34 (8). 368 – 373. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ531419
McNair, S. A. M. & Hayward, S. J. (2023). How do engineers do that?—An interactive introduction to the engineering design process for secondary age school pupils. Phys. Educ. 58 045002. doi 10.1088/1361-6552/accef3
Menz, P. G. (1993). The physics of bungee jumping. Phys. Teach. 31(8). 483 – 487. Retrieved from https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9120/29/4/012/pdf
Miller, K., Lasry, N., Chu, K. & Mazur, E. (2013). Role of physics lecture demonstrations in conceptual learning. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 9(2), 020113-1 – 020113-5. Doi: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.020113
OECD. (2019a). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. PISA. OECD Publishing, Paris. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.
Otero, V. K. & Meltzer, D. E. (2017). The past and future of physics education reform. Physics Today 70(5), 50 – 56. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.3555
Sriyansyah, S. P., Sihole, T., & Nurhasanah, F. (2023). Gender differences in students’ numerical literacy in the STEAM classroom. The 1st International Conference on Science Education and Sciences. AIP Conf. Proc. 2619, 110003-1–110003-6. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0122549
Supriyatman, Suhandi, A., Rusdiana, D., Samsudin, A., Wibowo, F.C. (2017). Problem-solving laboratory-based course development to improve mental model and mental modeling ability. Proceedings of the First Indonesian Communication Forum of Teacher Training and Education Faculty Leaders International Conference on Education 2017, Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 174, 4 – 7. Doi: 10.2991/ice-17.2018.2
Teevasuthonsakul, C., Yuvanatheeme, V., Sriput, V., & Suwandecha, S. (2017). Design steps for physic STEM education learning in secondary school. Siam Physics Congress 2017 (SPC2017), Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 901, 1 – 4. Doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/901/1/012118
Tretter, T. (2012). Taking the leap: A classroom bungee jump activity helps students understand physics concepts. The science teacher, April/May, 53 – 57.
Trout, K. P. & Gaston, C. A. (2001). Active-learning physics experiments using the Tarzan Swing. Phys. Teach. 39 (3), 160 – 163. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1364061
Volkwyn, T. S., Allie, S., Buffler, A., & Lubben, F. (2008). Impact of a conventional introductory laboratory course on the understanding of measurement. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 4(1), 010108-1 – 010108-10. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.010108
Wellhöfer, L. & Lühken, A. (2022). Problem-Based Learning in an Introductory Inorganic Laboratory:
Identifying Connections between Learner Motivation and Implementation. J. Chem. Educ. 99, 864−873. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00808
Wieman, C. & Holmes, N. G. (2015). Measuring the impact of an instructional laboratory on the learning of introductory physics. Am. J. Phys. 83(11), 972 – 978. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4931717
Wittmann, M. C., Steinberg, R. N., & Redish, E. F. (2003). Understanding and affecting student reasoning about sound. Int. J. Sci. Edu. 25 (8) ,991 – 1013. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0207/0207031.pdf
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Momentum: Physics Education Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Momentum: Physisc Education Journal allows readers to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles and allow readers to use them for any other lawful purpose. 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The Authors submitting a manuscript do so with the understanding that if accepted for publication, copyright of the article shall be assigned to Momentum: Physics Education Journal
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
