Friday, January 6, 2012

Gravity-Physics by Inquiry 2012 Innergy Award Submission

Gravity-Physics by Inquiry
2012 Innergy Award Submission by lookang.
For information on the winning entries in 2011, please visit

“An innovation is one of those things that society looks at and says, if we make this part of the way we live and work, it will change the way we live and work.” - Dean Kamen
What is this Award?
The MOE Innergy (HQ) Awards is a reward scheme:
  • to recognize individuals and teams with innovative ideas and who have spent time developing, testing and/or implementing them;
  • to recognize individuals and teams that have come up with innovations that have brought about significant benefits; and
  • to encourage more MOE officers to be innovative and creative in the work place.
What does the Award offer?
Besides the recognition and pride that come with getting this award, there is also the monetary reward component. There are five categories of award with varying amounts of monetary rewards:

Innovation that involves fundamental breakthrough in products/services/processes and created new and significant value-add to stakeholders previously not possible.

Development of innovative and effective products/services/processes with significant value-add to stakeholders.

Innovative, effective and significant enhancements of products/services/processes

Innovative enhancements to existing products/services/processes

Effective and practical ideas that improve existing products/services/processes

Criteria / Considerations

  • Is the idea unique and special?
  • Does the idea create new values / opportunities for MOE?
  • Does it contribute to the MOE mission?
How are the winners selected?
All applications will go through a selection process with an evaluation panel consisting of middle management from various divisions. The recommendations of the panel will constitute ODD’s final recommendation of winners to DM.  Applications are evaluated based on their quality and level of innovativeness, thus there will be no differentiation in award value between Individual submissions and Team submissions.
Shortlisted applicants will be required to attend a brief interview session with the evaluation panel, tentatively scheduled on 03 Feb 2012 (Fri). Innergy (HQ) Award winners will be notified by Mar 2012, and will receive their awards at ExCEL Fest 2012. 

How do I apply?
You can complete the attached application form for the Innergy (HQ) Award and email it, together with any necessary attachments, to by 6 Jan 2012.  We regret that late submissions will not be considered.

Type of innovation
  • New product offering that is unique and creates significant value to education e.g. Implementation of Synthetic Turf System in Schools – Synthetic fields give schools greater flexibility in scheduling Physical Education lessons, and field sports and games without having to worry about over-use affecting the condition of the field.
  • New way of doing things that is unique and creates significant value to education e.g. Research Activist Attachment Scheme – The Research Activist attachment scheme partners teachers with education researchers and MOE officers where they receive professional support and capacity building through consultation and special skills training

Download provided by Dropbox
For ease of seeding, scaling up and sustaining educational practices for the benefit of all humankind. Each computer model is created by their respective authors and need to be credited on your website for future sharing! Creative commons attribution licensed.

  1. ejs_KeplerSystem3rdLaw03.jar Kepler Solar System Model (Timberlake & Wee, 2011)
  2. ejs_EarthAndSatelite.jar Geostationary Satellite around Earth Model (Esquembre & Wee, 2010) 
  3. ejs_GField_and_Potential_1D_v7wee.jar One Dimensional Gravitational Model (Duffy & Wee, 2010a)
  4. ejs_GFieldandPotential1Dv7EarthMoon.jar One Dimension Gravitational Moon-Earth Model (Duffy & Wee, 2010b)

Studying physics of very large scale like the solar system is difficult in real life, using telescope on clear skies over years. We are a world-first to create 4 well designed gravity computer models to serve as powerful tools for students’ active inquiry, based on real data, syllabus-customized, free and rapidly-prototyped with Open-Source-Physics researchers-educators. Pilot research suggests students’ enactment of investigative learning like scientist is now possible, where gravity-physics ‘comes alive’. Scaling up through teacher leadership approach includes nexus MOEHQ to 167 schools, NRF-MOE-eduLab 5 schools, Physics-Senior-Teachers network 47 schools, 6 national-international conferences, and scholarly journal and digital libraries publications.

Description of innovation
Problem Identification and Awareness of Existing Solutions
A. What was the unique challenge or problem that led you to come out with this solution?
B. Are you aware of any existing practices or solutions that might address your problem? Why have you not adopted any of these, but chose to come out with your own idea instead?

A. Unique and truly fundamental breakthrough
Imagine sending students into outer space to collect gravitational scientific data and visualize the planets in the solar system (see Figure 1), or be in outer space just outside Earth’s atmosphere to visualize geostationary satellites (see Figure 2). How about science laboratory toolkit that allows students to investigate the gravitational effects of isolated mass that cannot be observe on Earth (see Figure 3) or visit the Earth’s Moon to launch a rocket out into space to investigate what is the minimum kinetic energy required to escape the Moon’s and Earth’s gravity pull (see Figure 4)?
Figure 1.    Kepler Solar System Model (Timberlake & Wee, 2011) with actual astronomical data built into the simulation, with realistic 3D visualization, (radius of planets such as Earth, rE and another planet for comparison  r,  and time t for determination of period of motion, T) data for inquiry learning and to situate understanding download:

Figure 2.    Geostationary Satellite around Earth Model (Esquembre & Wee, 2010) suitable for inquiry learning through different mode =1 to 7, with Geo Stationary checkbox option, 3D visualization, customized with Singapore as a location position for satellite fixed about a position above the earth with period 24 hours, same rotation sense on the equator plane. ejs_EarthAndSatelite.jar
Figure 3.    One Dimensional Gravitational Model (Duffy & Wee, 2010a) suitable for investigative inquiry learning through data collection, customized with syllabus learning objectives such as gravitational strength g, gravitational potential φ when one or both masses M1 and M2 are present with a test mass m. Superimpose are the mathematical representations, vector presentation of g, based on current Newtonian model of gravity. ejs_GField_and_Potential_1D_v7wee.jar
Figure 4.    One Dimension Gravitational Moon-Earth Model (Duffy & Wee, 2010b) suitable for investigative inquiry learning, further customized to allow the experiencing of an Advanced Level examination question June 87 /II/8. Data are based on real values where students can play and experience physics otherwise difficult to related to examination question. ejs_GFieldandPotential1Dv7EarthMoon.jar
It would be a great financial burden to space shuttle classroom full of students into space and not forgetting a potentially dangerous journey without oxygen and in extreme cool temperatures.
Thus, we believe that there is justification to ‘bring’ the planets in the solar system and other outer space environments into the classroom of typical schools and put the students in a position to conduct virtual experiments using teacher-researcher created computer models (Psycharis & Aspaite, 2008), or in short, simulations.

In addition, our computer models are unique solutions to classroom learning because they are:

  1. Realistic Models: they are designed based on data collected from NASA, Wikipedia pages on planets and they are widely accepted as accurate and appropriate models by the Open Source Physics (OSP) researcher community (Belloni, Christian, & Mason, 2009; Christian, Esquembre, & Barbato, 2011).
  2. Low-cost and customized according to our syllabus to address the four difficult concepts in gravitation commonly encountered by our students: A series of customized computer models as shown in Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 & Figure 4 are created to be flexible, customizable and tailored to the teachers’ interests, needs and pedagogical approach and flavor (Esquembre, 2002) through collaborative lesson co-design process between 2 teachers without additional financial funding from institutions. We used a commonly used among physics professors free authoring tool called Easy Java Simulation (Esquembre, 2004, 2010a) created by the OSP community.
  3. Innovative Global Community Product and Process: Not one but four computer models in a decentralized innovation (Ito, 2011) were rapidly created, deployed, improved and  fluidly supported by research community through the internet. There are about 65 computer models covering different topics in Physics created in this innovative process, all free of charge and probably well used around the world to improve physics by inquiry.   
mirror here for ease of downloading for sharing.
View  Download
View  Download
View  Download
View  Download

B.  Awareness of existing practice
Existing practice(s) include
  1. B1.    Structure learning from visiting websites to collect data as in Figure 17.
  2. B2.    Watching video about the planets that lacks critical interactivity necessary for investigative learning as in Figure 18.
  3. B3.    Scaled real life models as in Figure 19 are expensive and prone to wear and tear, lack scientific data necessary for inquiry learning such as missing key variables like time lapsed, ability to create a new planet etc.
  4. B4.    Free software like, Solar System 3D Simulator by Science Fair Projects World (Figure 20) 3D Solar System by H.Tingstrom (Figure 21), Google Earth Real-time satellites by Google (Figure 22) but they lack scientific data necessary for inquiry learning such as missing key variables like time lapsed, ability to create a new planet etc.   
  5. B5.    Paid Software such as Gravity simulator by Uranisoft (Figure 23) is a 2D visualization tool that sells for $15 to $45 US dollars per license and is designed for windows XP. We were not able to evaluate the FULL software.
  6. B6.    Researcher created free software such as My Solar System by PhET (Figure 24) is able to simulate lots of systems but not the same models as our own customized to Singapore Advanced Level Physics Syllabus.
  7. Thus, we have justified our claim that is not possible to enable self directed (Tan, Shanti, Tan, & Cheah, 2011) inquiry learning (MOE, 2011), a key initiative from Ministry of Education (MOE) with existing practices listed above B1 to B3 due to lack of interactivity and scientific data and existing practices above point B4 to B6, does not allow teachers to customize the models, thus unable to use them specifically for curriculum learning outcomes .
We harness the power of the pull (Hagel III, Brown, & Davison, 2010) and create these 4 and another about 61 (not reported here) computer models learning through the internet with physicists of the world, instead of planning and outsource the creation of computer models to vendors at high cost and later faced scaling up (Chris Dede, n.d) issues, potential copyrights infringement etc.

Conceptualisation & Implementation
C.    What was the process your team took to conceptualize and develop the innovation? Were the methods, rationale, or concepts sound and based on evidence-based research?
D.    What steps did your team take to implement the innovation?

C. Rigor of research and deliberation
The process to conceptualize and develop the innovation started in 2007 when Loo Kang found the open source physics community and through his teacher leadership (MOE, 2009b), with the view to bring world class OSP computer models into Singapore and the world’s classrooms.
Evidence-based research can be found from many journals in the effective use of computers as simulations (Choi & Gennaro, 1987; Christian & Esquembre, 2007; Clariana, 1989; Esquembre, 2004; Fiolhais & Trindade, 1998; F. K. Hwang & Esquembre, 2003; Lee, 2009; Lee, Guo, & Ho, 2008; Rieber, 1996; Spernjak, Puhek, & Sorgo, 2010; Tomshaw, 2006; Trindade, Fiolhais, & Almeida, 2002; Wong, Sng, Ng, & Wee, 2011).
Recent advances of use of computer model research by the PhET project at the University of Colorado (W. Adams et al., 2008; W. K. Adams, 2010; McKagana et al., 2008; K. Perkins et al., 2006; K. K. Perkins, Loeblein, & Dessau, 2010; PhET, 2011; Weiman & Perkins, 2005; C. E. Wieman, Adams, Loeblein, & Perkins, 2010; Carl E. Wieman, Adams, & Perkins, 2008; Carl E. Wieman, Perkins, & Adams, 2008) supports our research on computer models. (Ohio-State-University, 2010) recently “found that people who used computer simulations to learn about moon phases understood the concepts just as well -- and in some cases better -- than did those who learned from collecting data from viewing the moon”, this seems to suggest it is likely our research on gravity system could possibly lead to better conceptual understanding as well since the Solar System and Earth-Moon System content knowledge is closely related to their study.
We immerse in discussions forums mainly on NTNU Java Virtual Lab (F.-K. Hwang, 2010) and OSP (Christian, 2010) and network learn in these communities (Hord, 2009). This is how we initiated teacher-lead process in network learning with the world’s best computational physicists as in Figure 5 since 2007 and lesson intervention in 2011.

Figure 5.    Simplified timeline showing research and development at NTNU Java Virtual Lab (F.-K. Hwang, 2010) and OSP (Christian, 2010) in 2008 to 2010 and intervention and sharing on ICT connection edumall in 2011, research journal publication at Institute of Physics - Physics Education planned 2012.

We also submit our Digital computer models to the Open Source Physics Library (peer-reviewed by Physics Professors) based in USA as well as publishing journal papers in Institute of Physics (IOP) Physics Education journal (see Figure 5) based in Europe, ensuring research rigor and acceptance by the Physics research community.
Furthermore, educational research and computer models from the OSP community provided suitable ‘templates’ for our computer models to be derived or remixed from, in some way ‘guaranteed’ scientific validity in our models.
We are pleased to report that OSP recently received the Science Prize for Online Resources in Education (SPORE) Prize (Christian, et al., 2011) honored by Science Magazine established to encourage innovation and excellence in education, in the use of high-quality on-line resources by students, teachers, and the public in the world. This is a piece of good news for us too as we are active contributor(s) to the OSP digital library since 2009 with 10 out of the 550 computer models/resources shared world-wide through the OSP website for free, benefiting humankind regardless of race, language or religion.

D. Effectiveness of addressing problem
Steps innovation on each of the 4 computer models, are highlighted in brief as below.

D1.    Kepler System Model (Timberlake, 2010) by Professor of Physics, Department of Physics, Astronomy, and Geology, Berry College, USA served as the template for our Kepler Solar System Model (Timberlake & Wee, 2011) (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. our customized model (Timberlake & Wee, 2011) (right)
Figure 6.    Kepler System Model (Timberlake, 2010) (left)

Notice our model is focused and can simulate all planets moving at the same time,  better graphics of the planets etc.

Innovation/Contribution includes
  • Discovered a bug in the period of motion, solved it and improved (Timberlake, 2010) contributing to/with the OSP community.
  • Added other planets in our solar system absent in previous model by (Timberlake, 2010) such as Uranus, Neptune and Pluto using real life astronomy data from NASA.
  • Added realistic pictures of planets for better associated learning.
  • Re-programmed such that all planets will move together instead of only 3 planets as in (Timberlake, 2010).
  • Made the data like radius of orbits and time of orbits clearly noticeable for self directed inquiry.
  • Contributed and accepted by Wikipedia community the texts write-up and animated pictures of our model, benefiting global audience.

D2.    Earth and Moon Model (Esquembre, 2010b) by Professor of Mathematics, University of Murcia, Spain, served as the template for our Geostationary Satellite around Earth Model (Esquembre & Wee, 2010) (see Figure 7).

Figure 7. our customized model (Esquembre & Wee, 2010) (right)
Figure 7.    Earth and Moon Model (Esquembre, 2010b) (left)

Notice the customization created to suit our own learning and teaching objectives, with references made to geographic location of Singapore.

Innovation/Contribution includes:
  • Discovered a bug in the web deployment of Java 3D, solved it and improved (Esquembre, 2010b) with the OSP community
  • Added menu of different cases of geostationary orbits, with axis of rotation, time of motion for investigative, messing around (Jonassen, Howland, Marra, & Crismond, 2008) learning
  • Re-programmed such that laws of physics is still obeyed and added common misconception un-likely orbits where physics laws are not obeyed
  • Co-designed activity with school to further suit and enhance learning

D3.    Point Charge Electric Field in 1D Model (Duffy, 2009) by Professor of Physics, Department of Physics, Boston University, USA served as the template for our One Dimensional Gravitational Model (Duffy & Wee, 2010a) (see Figure 8).

Figure 8.our customized model (Duffy & Wee, 2010a) (right)
Figure 8.    Point Charge Electric Field in 1D Model (Duffy, 2009) (left)

notice play button is previous not available and additional potential V or φ concept

Innovation/Contribution includes:
  • Added potential V or φ concept with mathematical representation for conceptual referencing to pen paper learning
  • Converted from electrical concepts to gravitational concepts by adding gravitational constant previous missing to create new model or knowledge, and all are based on real life data
  • Re-programmed equation of motion to the test mass with that laws of physics obeyed for better sense making while playing with the model
  • Co-designed activity with school to further suit and enhance learning
D4.    Point Charge Electric Field in 1D Model (Duffy, 2009) by Professor of Physics, Department of Physics, Boston University, USA served as the template for our One Dimensional Gravitational Moon-Earth Model (Duffy & Wee, 2010b) (see Figure 9).

Figure 9. our customized model (Duffy & Wee, 2010b) (right)
Figure 9.    Point Charge Electric Field in 1D Model (Duffy, 2009) (left)

Notice real astronomical data are programmed as that the values reflect actual numerical calculated from actual experimental and theoretical experiments.

 Innovation/Contribution includes:
  • Added on to (Duffy & Wee, 2010a), with real life data of Earth and Moon, drawn to scale etc.
  • Added menu for investigation of launching test masses from the surface of the Moon, or Earth or a position of zero gravity constant, g.
  • Co-designed activity with school to enhance learning customized to Advanced Level examination question June 87 /II/8, to bring textbook context to life.

Thus, we have elaborated on why our solutions (4 computer models) and process to create the solutions standing on the shoulder of OSP giants, is a fundamental breakthrough on existing practices in MOE.

Impact and Effectiveness of Solution, and Benefits to Stakeholders
E.    What are some of the qualitative feedback or quantitative results that have come out from your innovation?
F.    How has your innovation benefited your intended recipients or stakeholders? How effective was your innovation in solving your initial problem?

E. Evidence of benefits to stakeholders

E1: Learners’ Qualitative Evidence:
We include excerpts from the qualitative survey results and informal interviews with the students to give some themes and insights into the conditions and processes during the laboratory lessons. Words in brackets [ ] are added to improve the readability of the qualitative interviews.

IMPROVED VISUALIZATION (2D, 3D and cannot see in real life)  AND SCIENTIFIC VIEW
  • it make[s] the theory much more easier to understand, especially when it is difficult to conduct experiments to prove the newton's law of gravitation and the Kepler's third law, for everything occurs in space.
  • "The ICT lessons make it easier for us to depict the motion of objects in a clearer manner and drawing the diagrams in questions easier. As some of the programmes possess 3-dimensional views, we are able to view the motion of the object in 3-dimensional, and hence, further explains the question with the use of ICT programmes."
  • Sometimes, it is hard to just visualize, it makes us understand and clarify our doubts about different scenarios in gravitational field.
  • The lessons allow me to understand the movement of a satellite which we cannot see normally in real life and are unable to comprehend from the 2D diagram. Thus, the 3D simulation allows me to learn better.
  • "able to see the big picture and view the concept in real life situation when in use. able to realize the practical purposes of having such physics concepts."

  • These lessons allow me to learn physics concepts better by using applications in the future. Thus, with the help of these applications and programs, i will be able to learn physics concepts through self-learning in future. Hence, it is good.
  • Allows [us] to get a better understanding of the topic as stimulation aids in visualizing the various questions easily, thus, able to solve the question. The lessons give me a clearer explanation of how things works thus, allowing me to understand.
  • it is manageable as i am able to make full use of the computer skills and technology to come about the learning concepts in physics.

  • The lesson is just great.
  • We should have more of ICT lesson
  • mr goh did a good job in conducting the lesson. the IT was also simple enough to understand.

E2: Learners’ Quantitative Evidence:
Quantitative data is collected based on a class of 20 students who undergo the lessons.

 Table 1: Quantitative Data collected based a sample class size of (N=20).

1 Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
1. I enjoyed learning about physics through this lesson
2. To what extent did the lesson meet schools’, teachers’ and pupils’ needs
3. How much did this lesson prepare you for life instead of just for examinations
SDL1. How much did this lesson allow for 1. Ownership of Learning - self-directed learning?
SDL2. How much did this lesson allow for 2. Management and Monitoring of Own Learning - self-directed learning?
SDL3. How much did this lesson allow for 3. Extension of Own Learning - self-directed learning?
CoL1. How much did this lesson allow for 1. Effective Group Processes - collaborative learning?
CoL2:How much did this lesson allow for 2. Accountability of Learning - collaborative learning?

 70% of the students self reported enjoying the lesson and another 75% felt the lesson exceeded their schools, teachers and their own learning needs.  We speculate that we can increase the 45% that was reported after these lessons in ‘prepare them for life than just for examinations’ by creating learning tasks closer to the thinking process as a scientist than in its current tutorial question format which is more likely to lack challenging tasks.
On average, at least 50% of the students felt that the lessons allow for self directness and 65% for collaboration to solve problems which we feel are very encouraging data.

E3: Learners’ Performance Evidence:
Some of the performances of the learning tasks are shown below as indications of the benefits to the students. Figure 10 gives the readers a mental picture of what the learning with computer models can look like, where a teacher facilitates groups of students, conducting inquiry physics through computer models.
Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14 are artifacts of performance of learning on each of the computer models to give the readers an idea of the kind of thinking and reflection after interacting with the models. Typically in other classes, students rely heavily on their own imagination and mathematical skills to make sense of the theory of gravity.

Figure 10.    Typical classroom setup where students self direct the inquiry learning collaboratively or otherwise, using the computer models as referents (C Dede, Salzman, Loftin, & Sprague, 1999), can served as powerful learning tools when well facilitated by teacher(s). Picture by Goh G.H.

Figure 11.    Sample of a student’s work where the table above is based on data collection with interacting with the Kepler Solar System computer model, making sense of the meaning of period T and the mean radius of the orbits of the planets for subsequent calculations in tutorial question to have a deepened personal experience.
Notice the period of the planets T and the mean radius r are now determined based on student’s own understanding, rather than static data to be analyze (traditional teaching method), the data collection adds richness of experiential meaning due to first person experiencing with the model.

Words like “mean” radius have no textual meaning unless the computer mimics actual planet distance from Sun to planet as a distance that is always changing, thus, “mean” implies average. 

Figure 12.    Sample of a student’s work where the activity on the worksheet guides the intended learning outcome, to bring to the cognitive attention of the learners certain characteristics of the motion to reflect and make meaning of. The ability to view from different perspective from outer space helps students to visualize and the different options emphasize investigation rather than memorization.

Notice the students’ answers are now actually based on the acts of scientific inquiry being scientist themselves, rather than the memorization of facts (traditional teaching method).

Making logical conclusions based on student-lead evidence based inquiry on the models.

Figure 13.    Sample of a student’s work where the activity on the worksheet guides the intended learning outcome, to allow students to take on the role of scientist to investigate through the computer model and make sense of the lines of gravitational and potential versus distance and play with the model to appreciate the meaning of these abstract concepts.
Notice meaning making is based on verifiable computer models as referents like invisible concepts like gravitational constant g and potential ϕ.

World view of 2 masses with well designed superimposed scientific representations of gravitational constant and potential gives students experience to make meaning of the scientific terms.

Figure 14.    Sample of a student’s work where the activity on the worksheet guides the intended learning outcome, to allow students to take on the role of scientist to investigate through the computer model and make sense of meaning of escape velocity and play the model to appreciate the meaning of these abstract concepts.

 Notice students’ answers are now richer in expressing what they have experience rather than imagination.

Students usually have little means to understand escape velocity, now the calculations made by the students are merely ways to verify the theoretical mathematical models in the computer models, the can see for themselves the cause of effects of different velocities launched from the Moon, in this case. The deeper conceptual understanding made possible in our computer models that other methods cannot achieve.

 E4: Teacher-Researchers’ Performance Evidence:
Teacher Goh G.H. has benefited from networked learning with Wee L.K. and is more confident in 1) designing inquiry worksheets 2) embedding computer models into tutorial questions for inquiry physics 3) lead sharing in 1st Academy Symposium 2011 and 4th Instructional Program Support Group 2012 (see list of conferences in G4).
E5: School Benefit Evidence:
Yishun Junior College (YJC) has benefited from Goh G.H. undertaking to pilot 1 to 1 learning with laptops (Dwyer, 1994), a YJC initiated project and these 4 computer models can serve as means to support the enactment of self directed (Tan, et al., 2011) and collaborative learning (Chai & Tan, 2010) and inform future school led initiatives.

Summary of E1 to E5:
From E1 to E3, we believe the benefits to students are to allow them take on the role of scientists (Jan, Chee, & Tan, 2010), to conduct their own guided inquiry learning for efficient use of curriculum time and promoting self direction as life long learners (MOE, 2009a). Our solutions substantially address the challenge of allowing students to make sense of and ‘bring’ very large gravity systems such as Solar System Model (Figure 1), Earth and Satellite Model (Figure 2), Two Mass Model science laboratory toolkit (Figure 3) and Moon-Earth Model (Figure 4), into the hands of ordinary students, in any classroom, in any part of the world.
E4 and E5 illustrate how Teacher(s) and School(s) also benefit from exploring using free computer models to bring physics learning alive through technology.

 Long-term Sustainability & Potential for Scaling Up
G.    Are there plans in place for the process or solution you have developed to be sustainable (beyond the initial implementers)?
H.    Is the solution you have developed suitable for other recipients besides the ones you have tested it on (eg. public, parents)?

G. Evidence of planned sustainability

Figure 15.    Conceptual framework for scaling up through Teacher Leadership Approach, In MOE, through G1: MOE-CPDD-ETD edTech in curriculum ,G2: NRF-MOE eduLab001 project, G3: MOE-AST physics teachers network, G4: conference papers local and overseas and G5 ICT connection edumall. Globally building on G5: Open Source Physics Global research and publishing in G6: Physics Education journal, and remix work(s) adopted by G7: Wikipedia.

G1: MOE-ETD-ETC Education Technology in curriculum:
Planned Audience: ALL 167 secondary schools and junior colleges in Singapore
A new Education Technology in curriculum (ETC) section in ETD structure of the re-organization lead by DGE Ms Ho Peng, articulates a nexus in ETD to connect CPDD and ETD. As ETD restructure to impact curriculum directly, we have plans to infuse these 4 and others OSP computers models and curriculum materials into the syllabus (O and A levels) and teaching and learning guides. Working as one MOE, leaders in ETD, CPDD and AST expressed interest to scale up computer models in Singapore Physics Education in all 167 Secondary Schools and Junior Colleges that offer Physics.

G2: NRF-MOE eduLab001 project:
Planned Scalability: 1 Integrated Programme School and 4 Junior Colleges
National Research Fund (NRF) & MOE funded NRF2011-eduLab001 Java Simulation Design for Teaching and Learning project (Wee, 2010)
A project consists of 5 schools, River Valley High, Yishun Junior College, Serangoon Junior College, Innova Junior College & Anderson Junior College to pilot lesson packages developed from January 2012 to December 2013, lead by the same group of innovator-teachers.

G3: AST network of 47 Schools and 62 Senior, Lead and Master teachers
Emails follow-up were sent through the Academy Master, Lead and Senior Teacher Networks = 62 and number of different schools = 47 with our gravity simulations, as a demonstration of the ease of information transference.
Thus, the computer models and its curriculum materials are given to teachers, making them  Aware, step 1 of the pathman-PRECEED model of knowledge translation (Davis et al., 2003).

G4: International and Local Conference Sharing
  1. Goh G.H., Tan H.K., Wee L.K. (2012, 18 January) Promoting independent learning in the topic of Gravitation using Easy-Java Simulations @4th Instructional Programme Support Group (IPSG) Sharing, Anderson Junior College, Singapore
  2. Wee, L.K. (2012, 04-08 February). Physics Educators as Designers of Simulation using EJS part 2. Paper presented at the American Association of Physics Teachers National Meeting Conference: 2012 Winter Meeting, Ontario, California, USA.
  3. Wee L.K., Lee T.L. Goh G.H. (2012, 27-30 March) Physics by Inquiry with Simulations @3rd International Conference on Teaching and Learning with Technology, iCTLT 2012, Singapore
  4. Wee, L.K., Xu W.M., Lee T.L. Phua Damien, Goh G.H., Goh K.S, Ong C.W., Ng S.K. Lim Kenneth, Ng Nathanael (2012, 01-06 July). Physics Educators as Designers of Simulation using EJS in NRF-MOE eduLab001 project. Paper presented at the 1st World Conference on Physics Education: in 2012, Istanbul, Turkey (pending paper submission)
  1. Wee L.K. Lee T.L. Goh G.H. (2011, 10 November) Physics by Inquiry with Simulations Design for Learning @The Academy Symposium, Academy of Singapore Teachers, Singapore
  2. Wee, L. K. (2010, 20 July). Physics Educators as Designers of Simulation using Easy Java Simulation. Paper presented at the American Association of Physics Teachers National Meeting Conference: 2010 Summer Meeting, Portland, Oregon, USA. [PPT]

Actual Audience Physics by Inquiry with Simulations Design for Learning @The Academy Symposium: 14 schools, 25 teachers
We gave all the 25 participants (consisting of Academy Singapore Teachers, Curriculum and Planning Division officers & many schools teachers) the 4 gravity computer models, 1 collision computer model (combined sharing) and PowerPoint presentation with links to download the curriculum as well as other models from OSP and NTNU Digital Library. This is evidence of benefits to stakeholders in all MOE adequately as we also introduced the larger pools of computer models to suit teachers’ time frame for innovative use of computer models.
Below are some of the comments from the participants
  1. hello A-team,thank you for your sharing. hope to put it to use soon (in 2012). have a great holiday 2011.
  2. Thanks so much and have a good weekend.
  3. Thanks for sharing your ppt and also congratulations on the new book on physics that was launched. Charles gave me a copy and I finished it yesterday at the conference itself. It is a good read and a great resource to the teachers.
  4. Thanks for your generous sharing of resources. Will definitely keep you posted if I can design any worksheets with your applets.
  5. Yes. I really did. It is an eye-opener for me especially since I was teaching Physics earlier in the year.Thank you very much

We speculate a good number of the 83 teachers (accounted for duplicate names from Table 3 and 4) from the about 55 different schools (accounted for duplicate schools from Table 3 and 4) would agree that the material shared is useful, may be adopt and adapt to suit their own context.
In addition, the scaling up plan is to impact curriculum syllabus and teaching guides so that ALL 167 secondary schools and junior colleges offering Physics will benefit from our computer models curriculum.
Thus, this and other parts of the write-up, are evidences of planned sustainability beyond these 4 gravity models as we have already created about in total 65 computer models, probably already used in classrooms in Singapore and beyond. Teachers can easily sustained the use of these computer models and start their own contribution to the global OSP digital library as membership is by contribution, and not limited to nationality.

Accurate as of time of write-up, teachers from the 5 schools in eduLab project and the 55 schools in networks (face to face and emails) are very excited about our computer models and are in discussions to use and research on computer models.

G5: NTNU Java Digital Library and edumall ICT connection
Downloadable materials through Public internet access and eduMall (Goh & Wee, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2011d)
  1. Goh, J., & Wee, L. K. (2011a). Virtual Laboratory Gravitational Field & Potential of 2 Mass Model  Retrieved 17 Nov, 2011, from &
  2. Goh, J., & Wee, L. K. (2011b). Virtual Laboratory Gravitational Field & Potential of Earth and Moon  Retrieved 17 Nov, 2011, from &
  3. Goh, J., & Wee, L. K. (2011c). Virtual Laboratory of Geostationary Satellite around Earth Model  Retrieved 17 Nov, 2011, from &
  4. Goh, J., & Wee, L. K. (2011d). Virtual Laboratory of Kepler's Third Law Solar System Model Retrieved 17 Nov, 2011, from &

 Table 2: Number of views and downloads from edumall ICT connection website and NTNU JAVA Computer Model Digital Library

eduMall ICT Connection
views / download
data until December 06, 2011
NTNU Digital Library
views / download
data until December 06, 2011
Virtual Laboratory Gravitational Field & Potential of 2 Mass Model
6 / 18
since November 09, 2011
2 104 / 57
since August 02, 2010
Virtual Laboratory Gravitational Field & Potential of Earth and Moon
6 / 20
since November 09, 2011
2 689 / 64
since August 10, 2010
Virtual Laboratory of Geostationary Satellite around Earth Model
7 / 20
since November 09, 2011

3 441 / 99
since June 30, 2010
Virtual Laboratory of Kepler's Third Law Solar System Model
13 / 39
since November 09, 2011
785 / 46
since June 23, 2011
32 / 97
views / download
9 019 / 266
views / download

 There is a total of 97 downloads by eduMall registered users, of the curriculum materials shared in eduMall ICT connection for the period 26 days (exclusive of start and end dates) of November 09, 2011 to December 06, 2011.
This 97 downloads and the face to face sharing(s) and email through academy physics senior teachers, gives a clear signal of our scaling up in Singapore schools.

Globally, a total of 9 019 views and 266 downloads of our computer models has been recorded.

G5: Open Source Physics community and Digital Library Collection
We are in the process of submitting our Digital computer models to the Open Source Physics Library (peer-reviewed by Physics Professors) like previous models as listed below:
  1. Hwang, F.K., & WEE, L. K. (2011). Direct Current Electrical Motor Model. Retrieved from
  2. Hwang, F.K, & WEE, L.K. (2011). Newton's Cradle Applet [Computer software]. Retrieved July 26, 2011, from
  3. WEE, L.K (2011). Up and Down Bouncing Ball Model [Computer software]. Retrieved April 23, 2011, from
  4. WEE, L.K., & Esquembre, F. (2010). Lorentz force on a current carrying wire java applet [Computer software]. Retrieved April 23, 2011, from
  5. Hwang, F.K., & WEE, L.K. (2010). Cyclotron in 3D Model (Version 10/12/2010) [Computer software]. Retrieved April 23, 2011, from
  6. Hwang, F.K., WEE, L.K. & Christian, W (2009). Vernier Caliper Model [Computer software]. Retrieved April 23, 2011, from
  7. Hwang, F.K., WEE, L.K. & Christian, W (2009). Micrometer Model [Computer software]. Retrieved April 23, 2011, from
  8. Hwang, F.K. & WEE, L.K (2009). Blackbody Radiation Spectrum Model [Computer software]. Retrieved April 23, 2011, from

Thus, the innovation has already taken root in the Global OSP community and continue to innovate beyond these 4 gravity computer models and potentially all Physics models, see  OSP website of 550 computer models/resources shared so far. We have in total about 65 computer models/resources that can be downloaded for free from NTNU Java Virtual Laboratory (F.-K. Hwang, 2010)
Vasudeva Rao Aravind, Professor of Physics from Pennsylvania State University, USA recently shared some of the computer models we help create in similar process as the 4 gravity models, see Figure 16. He has a great news to share in his facebook message to Loo Kang which the Mexico teachers who attended Professor Vasu’s workshop were “very very excited” by our computer models. These benefits are evidence of stakeholders and the world beyond its initial intent.

Figure 16.    Vasudeva Rao Aravind, Professor of Physics from Pennsylvania State University, USA recently shared some of the computer models we help create in similar process as the 4 gravity models in a workshop in Mexico based on a invited by the American Association of Physics Teachers, Mexico Chapter.

G6: Research Journal Publication
We are in the process of submitting our manuscripts to Institute of Physics like our previous journal papers.
  1. Wee L.K. (2012) One-Dimensional Collision Carts Computer Model and its Design Ideas for Productive Experiential Learning Physics Education XX(X), XXX (accepted for publication by Institute of Physics provisional February 2012)
  2. Wong, D., Sng, P. P., Ng, E. H., & Wee, L. K. (2011). Learning with multiple representations: an example of a revision lesson in mechanics. Physics Education, 46(2), 178. [Draft PDF]

Thus, the innovation writings will be peer-reviewed by Physics Professor(s) and live on in scholarly academic communities where we also hope to also make our computer models and curriculum materials downloadable from OSP website, to benefit humankind for the world.
Our solution is therefore well grounded in evidence-based research and we have the rigor and deliberation in the implementation process.

H: Scalability beyond intended recipients

H1: Primary and Lower Secondary Science and Mathematics syllabus
These solutions can be scaled up to Secondary schools and Primary schools curriculum as I have organized in my blog and similar innovation can be scaled to Mathematics using free tools like Geogebra or Easy Java Simulation.

H2: International Adoption of our work(s) by Wikipedia community, serving millions of viewers in the world including Singapore public and parents.

In addition, Wikipedia has accepted animated graphics and supporting texts of our models as valuable and accurate graphics and that should be also taken into account, in terms of the scale up possibilities in helping to inform millions of viewers visiting Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia pages should be viewed through the actual website to witness the effects of the animation with accompanying texts as the word document is unable to render the animation gif files below.
For the complete list of the contribution to Wikipedia please go to

We argue for computer models as suitable physics learning environments for the following three reasons: 1) to visualize physics through multiple representations (Wong, et al., 2011) especially for invisible and very large scale concepts 2) ease of theory generation from ‘real life annoyances free’ (Lenaerts & Wieme, 2004), accurate computer models, 3) mathematical analysis & modeling (D. Brown & Christian, 2011; F. K. Hwang & Esquembre, 2003) to deepen inquiry.
We demonstrate 1) Four computer models on gravity (Duffy & Wee, 2010a, 2010b; Esquembre & Wee, 2010; Timberlake & Wee, 2011) as innovative learning tools 2) a viable research-validated, global community innovative process using free tool(s) to create computer models to enrich learning experiences and achieve student-directed inquiry physics with simulations.
We report the computer models and curriculum materials that we believe are at the long tail (J. S. Brown & Adler, 2008, p. 26) of innovation and we aim to be agent of change (Ho, 2010) for improving educational services provided by school educators, changing the way we make Physics come “alive” in schools and at home.
We have given evidences that we have four research grounded lesson packages with computer models, are not just unsubstantiated ideas but a USA government funded innovation supported by NSF DUE-0442581 based on the OSP community’s research work.

What does MOE gain financially?
By celebrating this infant innovation in Singapore, MOE stands to benefit by rationalization of the traditional millions of dollars allocated to educational Research and Development program such as those in reported in mass media like Virtual Worlds@MOE and Next Generation Text Book NGIT. The savings to MOE in this innovation could run up to $100 000 for these 4 computer models and potentially tens of millions of dollars could be better spent when such computer models or software development process are embraced to 167 schools.

What does Singapore gain?
Thus, we have positioned our innovation, both product and process that support professional learning of teachers (MOE, 2009b) with teachers as curriculum leaders and designers of simulations. While standing of the shoulders of giants, the global OSP community, we too, bring computer models into classrooms all around the world benefiting all humankind regardless of race, language or religion, with Singapore as an innovation leader-partner for the world.  

5. Annex Figures
not included
6. Annex Table
Table 3: Number of Academy Master, Lead and Senior Physics Teacher Networks = 62 and number of different schools = 47 emailed with details on our free gravity computer models and curriculum.

not included
Table 4: Participants and their school/MOEHQ with total participants = 25 and number of different schools = 14 as in indication of the recipients of scale up.
not included
7. Reference

  1. Adams, W., Reid, S., LeMaster, R., McKagan, S., Perkins, K., Dubson, M., & Wieman, C. (2008). A Study of Educational Simulations Part II--Interface Design. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(4), 551-577.
  2. Adams, W. K. (2010). Student engagement and learning with PhET interactive simulations. NUOVO CIMENTO- SOCIETA ITALIANA DI FISICA SEZIONE C, 33(3), 21-32.
  3. Belloni, M., Christian, W., & Mason, B. (2009). Open Source and Open Access Resources for Quantum Physics Education. [Abstract]. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(1), 125-126.
  4. Brown, D., & Christian, W. (2011, Sept 15-17). Simulating What You See. Paper presented at the MPTL 16 and HSCI 2011, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
  5. Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(1), 16-20,22,24,26,28,30,32.
  6. Chai, C., & Tan, S. (2010). Collaborative Learning and ICTICT for self-directed and collaborative learning (pp. 52–69).
  7. Choi, B.-S., & Gennaro, E. (1987). The effectiveness of using computer simulated experiments on junior high students' understanding of the volume displacement concept. [Article]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 539-552.
  8. Christian, W. (2010). Open Source Physics (OSP)  Retrieved 25 August, 2010, from
  9. Christian, W., & Esquembre, F. (2007). Modeling Physics with Easy Java Simulations. Physics Teacher, 45(8), 475-480.
  10. Christian, W., Esquembre, F., & Barbato, L. (2011). Open Source Physics. Science, 334(6059), 1077-1078. doi: 10.1126/science.1196984
  11. Clariana, R. B. (1989). Computer Simulations of Laboratory Experiences. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 8(2), 14-19.
  12. Davis, D., Davis, M. E., Jadad, A., Perrier, L., Rath, D., Ryan, D., . . . Zwarenstein, M. (2003). The case for knowledge translation: shortening the journey from evidence to effect. BMJ, 327(7405), 33-35. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7405.33
  13. Dede, C. (n.d). Exploring the Process of Scaling Up. Harvard University.  Retrieved from and
  14. Dede, C., Salzman, M., Loftin, R., & Sprague, D. (1999). Multisensory Immersion as a Modeling Environment for Learning Complex Scientific Concepts. Computer Modeling and Simulation in Science Education.
  15. Duffy, A. (2009). Point Charge Electric Field in 1D Model. Retrieved from
  16. Duffy, A., & Wee, L. K. (2010a). Ejs Open Source Gravitational Field & Potential of 2 Mass Java Applet. Singapore. Retrieved from
  17. Duffy, A., & Wee, L. K. (2010b). Ejs Open Source Gravitational Field & Potential of Earth and Moon Java Applet. Singapore. Retrieved from
  18. Dwyer, D. (1994). Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow: What We've Learned. Educational Leadership, 51(7), 4-10.
  19. Esquembre, F. (2002). Computers in physics education. Computer Physics Communications, 147(1-2), 13-18.
  20. Esquembre, F. (2004). Easy Java Simulations: A software tool to create scientific simulations in Java. Computer Physics Communications, 156(2), 199-204.
  21. Esquembre, F. (2010a). Easy Java Simulations  Retrieved 20 October, 2010, from
  22. Esquembre, F. (2010b). Ejs Open Source Earth and Moon Model (Version 1.0). Spain. Retrieved from
  23. Esquembre, F., & Wee, L. K. (2010). Ejs Open Source Geostationary Satellite around Earth Java Applet (Version 1.0). Singapore. Retrieved from
  24. Fiolhais, C., & Trindade, J. (1998). Use of Computers in Physics education. Proceedings of the" Euroconference'98–New Technologies for Higher Education.
  25. Goh, J., & Wee, L. K. (2011a). Virtual Laboratory Gravitational Field & Potential of 2 Mass Model  Retrieved 17 Nov, 2011, from and
  26. Goh, J., & Wee, L. K. (2011b). Virtual Laboratory Gravitational Field & Potential of Earth and Moon  Retrieved 17 Nov, 2011, from and
  27. Goh, J., & Wee, L. K. (2011c). Virtual Laboratory of Geostationary Satellite around Earth Model  Retrieved 17 Nov, 2011, from and
  28. Goh, J., & Wee, L. K. (2011d). Virtual Laboratory of Kepler's Third Law Solar System Model Retrieved 17 Nov, 2011, from and
  29. Hagel III, J., Brown, J. S., & Davison, L. (2010). The power of pull: How small moves, smartly made, can set big things in motion: Basic Books (AZ).
  30. Ho, P. (2010). Agents Of Change. Challenge  Retrieved 20 December, 2011, from
  31. Hord, S. M. (2009). Professional Learning Communities: Educators Work Together toward a Shared Purpose. Journal of Staff Development, 30(1), 40-43.
  32. Hwang, F.-K. (2010). NTNU Virtual Physics Laboratory  Retrieved 20 October, 2010, from
  33. Hwang, F. K., & Esquembre, F. (2003). Easy java simulations: An interactive science learning tool. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer - Enhanced Learning, 5.
  34. Ito, J. (2011). Creating the Future at the MIT Media Lab. Journalism and Media Studies Centre Hong Kong: Hong Kong University.
  35. Jan, M., Chee, Y. S., & Tan, E. M. (2010). Changing Science Classroom Discourse toward Doing Science: The Design of a Game-based Learning Curriculum. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers in Education, Putrajaya, Malaysia.
  36. Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Marra, R., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
  37. Lee, Y. (2009). Using computer simulations to facilitate conceptual understanding of electromagnetic induction.  Ph.D., State University of New York at Buffalo, United States -- New York. Retrieved from 
  38. Lee, Y., Guo, Y., & Ho, H. (2008). Explore Effective Use of Computer Simulations for Physics Education. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(4), 443.
  39. Lenaerts, J., & Wieme, W. (2004). Developing ICT based Learningware for Physics. Paper presented at the New Educational Benefits of ICT in Higher Education, Rotterdam: Erasmus Plus BV.
  40. McKagana, S. B., Perkins, K. K., Dubson, M., Malley, C., Reid, S., Lemaster, R., & Wieman, C. E. (2008). Developing and researching PhET simulations for teaching quantum mechanics. [Article]. American Journal of Physics, 76(4/5), 406-417. doi: 10.1119/1.2885199
  41. MOE. (2009a). Speech by Mr S Iswaran, Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Trade and Industry and Ministry of Education, at the International Conference on Teaching and Learning with Technology (iCTLT) on Thursday, 4 March 2010, at 9.00am at Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre  Retrieved 20 October, 2010, from
  42. MOE. (2009b). Teachers — The Heart of Quality Education  Retrieved 20 October, 2010, from
  43. MOE. (2011). Handbook for Teaching Secondary Physics C. Y. Lau, D. J. S. Wong, C. M. K. Chew & J. K. S. Ong (Eds.),   Retrieved from
  44. Ohio-State-University. (2010). Computer simulations can be as effective as direct observation at teaching students  Retrieved December 30, 2011, from
  45. Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., Wieman, C., & LeMaster, R. (2006). PhET: Interactive Simulations for Teaching and Learning Physics. The Physics Teacher, 44(1), 18-23. doi: 10.1119/1.2150754
  46. Perkins, K. K., Loeblein, P. J., & Dessau, K. L. (2010). Sims For Science. [Article]. Science Teacher, 77(7), 46-51.
  47. PhET. (2011). The Physics Education Technology (PhET) project at the University of Colorado at Boulder, USA from
  48. Psycharis, P. S., & Aspaite, G. (2008). Computerized Models in Physics Teaching: Computational Physics and ICT. International Journal of Learning, 15(9).
  49. Rieber, L. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(2), 43-58. doi: 10.1007/bf02300540
  50. Spernjak, A., Puhek, M., & Sorgo, A. (2010). Lower Secondary School Students' Attitudes Toward Computer-Supported Laboratory Exercises. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 23-26.
  51. Tan, S. C., Shanti, D., Tan, L., & Cheah, H. M. (2011). Self-directed learning with ICT: Theory, Practice and Assessment. MOE (Ed.)   Retrieved from
  52. Timberlake, T. (2010). Kepler System Model (Version 1.0). Retrieved from
  53. Timberlake, T., & Wee, L. K. (2011). Ejs Open Source Kepler 3rd Law System Model Java Applet (Version 1.0). Singapore. Retrieved from
  54. Tomshaw, S. G. (2006). An investigation of the use of microcomputer-based laboratory simulations in promoting conceptual understanding in secondary physics instruction. Ph.D. 3227372, Drexel University, United States -- Pennsylvania. Retrieved from 
  55. Trindade, J., Fiolhais, C., & Almeida, L. (2002). Science learning in virtual environments: a descriptive study. [Article]. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 471-488.
  56. Wee, L. K. (2010, 03 November). eduLab mass briefing on possible ideation options for eduLab projects sharing on Easy Java Simulation and Tracker. Jurong Junior College, 2010, from
  57. Weiman, C., & Perkins, K. (2005). Transforming Physics Education. Physics Today, 58(11), 36-40.
  58. Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., Loeblein, P., & Perkins, K. K. (2010). Teaching Physics Using PhET Simulations. Physics Teacher, 48(4), 225-227.
  59. Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PhET: Simulations That Enhance Learning. [Article]. Science, 322(5902), 682-683.
  60. Wieman, C. E., Perkins, K. K., & Adams, W. K. (2008). Oersted Medal Lecture 2007: Interactive simulations for teaching physics: What works, what doesn't, and why. American Journal of Physics, 76(4), 393-399. doi: 10.1119/1.2815365
  61. Wong, D., Sng, P. P., Ng, E. H., & Wee, L. K. (2011). Learning with multiple representations: an example of a revision lesson in mechanics. Physics Education, 46(2), 178.

received an email from the organisers.
Hope the panel is open and fair :)
Dear Sir/Madam,

1) We have received your submission for the Innergy (HQ) Awards 2012

2) We are in the process of evaluating all submissions. If your project qualifies for the next round of evaluations, you'll be contacted via email and phone before 3 Feb 2012

3) We regret to say that if you do not receive a notification by then, it means your submission did not make the first cut.

4) Whether or not your submission clinches an award, we would like to acknowledge your outstanding efforts in bringing innovation and improvement to your workplace. We are sure your colleagues and students have benefitted much from your endeavours.

5) If you have any queries, please feel free to contact Jonathan Wong, Fernn Lim or Ho Wei Hao

6) Lastly, we thank you for supporting the Innergy (HQ) Awards 2012. Your efforts are much appreciated

prepare a PPT

innergy award gravity phyiscs by inquiry

copy of the submission:

Update 29 Feb 2012

Dear Sir/Madam,
1.       Congratulations, Innergy (HQ) Awards 2012 Winners! This year, we received a total of 53 submissions and the panel has selected a total of 19 winners (2 Gold, 2 Silver, 7 Bronze, 8 Commendation) for 2012.
2.       Details of winners can be found in the table below:
Project Title
Award Type
Bringing Innovative Ideas to Practice Through Propel-T Projects
Gravity-Physics by Inquiry

3. In addition to the Awards Trophy, a letter of appreciation personally endorsed by DGE will be sent to all participants. This letter of appreciation serves as an encouragement for all participants, to continue their innovative spirit.
4. As such, we would like to request that you fill in the attached document with the particulars of your team members by 5pm, 04 March,2012.
• Include the names and the NRIC numbers of the members of your team. This is for us to bank in the prize money to the winning officers.
• Ensure that the names of members, their information, and your project title are accurate.
• Indicate to us how much prize money each team member should be allocated.
• Verify that all the staff involved are employed by MOE. In the case that they are not, please indicate so, and nominate one other team member to receive the prize money on his/her behalf.
5. The Innergy (HQ) Awards 2012 will be presented during the MOE ExCEL FEST Awards Ceremony on 30 March 2012. We will provide you with more details regarding the Awards Ceremony soon.
6. The Innergy Secretariat would like to thank you for all the support you have given us, and we look forward to receiving your nominations next year for the Innergy (HQ) Awards 2013.