Each year our physical science class for pre-service elementary teachers launches water-powered rockets based on the activity from NASA.1 We analyze the rocket flight using data from frame-by-frame video analysis of the launches. Before developing the methods presented in this paper, we noticed our students were mired in calculation details while losing sight of physical concepts. Sloppy measurements and calculations (even when using spreadsheets with formulas provided) sometimes led to such poor results that physical concepts could not be reliably taught from the data, but students were unmotivated to either notice or correct their errors. We adopted a collaborative, computer supported approach using simple and easily available functions in Google Spreadsheets to pool observations, provide instant feedback, and publicly display results from all teams side-by-side in real time. These instant comparisons promote student accountability and engagement, inspiring them to think more carefully about why answers may be different and notice sloppy data or unlikely outcomes—in short, to facilitate and motivate expert thinking about data.

Topics
Hydroelectric energy, Equipment and apparatus, Geophysics, Model rocket, Education, Teaching, Corrections, News and events, Physicists, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
1.
NASA, “
Rockets Educator Guide
,” EG-2011-11-223-KSC (
NASA
,
Washington, D.C.
,
2011
).
2.
Scott
 
Bonham
, “
Whole class laboratories with Google Docs
,”
Phys. Teach.
 
49
,
22
–
23
(
Jan. 2011
).
https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3527749
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
3.
N.
 
Herr
,
M.
 
Rivas
,
B.
 
Foley
,
V.
 
Vandergon
, and
G.
 
Simila
, “
Using collaborative web-based documents to instantly collect and analyze whole class data
,”
Proceedings of the 9th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Education
(
Jan. 2011
), pp.
2498
–
2503
.
Google Scholar
 
4.
“
How Experts Differ from Novices
,” in
How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition
, edited by
J. D.
 
Bransford
,
A. L.
 
Brown
, and
R. R.
 
Cocking
 (
National Academies Press
,
Washington, D.C.
,
2000
), pp.
29
–
50
.
Google Scholar
 
5.
C. J.
 
Ormand
,
D.
 
Gentner
,
B.
 
Jee
,
T. F.
 
Shipley
,
B.
 
Tikoff
,
D.
 
Uttal
, and
C.
 
Manduca
, “
Finding fault: Laboratory experiments and classroom studies on identifying faults in images
,”
Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr. Programs
 
41
,
196
(
Oct. 2009
).
Google Scholar
 
6.
In a typical introductory physics class in the nation, 85% of the students have taken some form of high school physics (P. M. Sadler and R. H. Tai, “Success in introductory college physics: The role of high school preparation,” J. Res. Sci. Teach. 42, 111–136). In PHSC 170, only 35% have, and most of those took a physical science course targeted towards non-science students. In terms of math, 20% report that math “terrifies” them.
7.
For further information on the experimental design, see Appendix A at TPT Online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4820858.
8.
See Appendix A for details about inter-rater reliability.
9.
See Appendix A for technique to calculate statistical significance.
10.
Douglas
 
Brown
 and
Anne
 
Cox
, “
Innovative uses of video analysis
,”
Phys. Teach.
 
47
,
145
–
150
(
March 2009
).
https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3081296
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
11.
See Appendix B at TPT Online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4820858 for further discussion of the appropriate use of conditional formatting.
12.
See Appendix C at TPT Online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4820858.
© 2013 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2013
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to The Physics Teacher and the American Journal of Physics as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.