## Thursday, September 20, 2012

### The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics and Thermal Equilibrium

The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics by Charles Xie
 The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics by Energy2D :Author: Charles Xie. If A and B are in thermal equilibrium with C, then A and B will be in thermal equilibrium with each other if they are brought into contact. Notice thermal equilibrium occurs when there is no net heat flow and TA = 13.4 oC = TB = TChttp://weelookang.blogspot.sg/2012/09/the-zeroth-law-of-thermodynamics.htmlhttp://energy.concord.org/energy2d/zeroth.htmlAuthor of Energy 2D : Charles XieAuthor of this model The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics: Charles Xie

If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third one, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.
http://energy.concord.org/energy2d/zeroth.html
Author of Energy 2D : Charles Xie
Author of this model The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics: Charles Xie

If A and B are in thermal equilibrium with C, then A and B will be in thermal equilibrium with each other if they are brought into contact.

From Wikipedia:
The zeroth law of thermodynamics is a generalization principle of thermal equilibrium among bodies, or thermodynamic systems, in contact.

The zeroth law states that if two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.

Changes made to create the animated GIF.
specific heat capacity =10 instead of 1000 to allow heat energy to transfer more quickly from higher temperature to lower temperature.

embed applet from host concord
html

Coloring: GraphIsothermHeat flux

/html

Thermal Equilibrium

When body A is placed in thermal contact with body B, there will be a flow of thermal energy between the two bodies. Thermal energy will flow from the body at a higher temperature to the one at a lower temperature until thermal equilibrium between the two bodies is reached.
 Energy 2D by Charles Xie, Templates - Heat and Temperature - Thermal Equilibrium between identical objects. Animated gif by lookang added label A and B and specific heat capacity set to 10 instead of 1000 for faster animation. Notice, a final state will be reached whereby no net heat flows between A and B when TA = TB = 24.7 oC instead of the theoretical value of 25.0 oC.
the online applet version is available here
http://energy.concord.org/energy2d/two-blocks.html

A final state will be reached whereby no net heat flows between A and B (i.e. heat flow from A to B = heat flow from B to A). Bodies A and B are then said to be in thermal equilibrium. The two bodies will also carry the same temperature at this state.

Thus, in conclusion, we say that

two systems in thermal contact are said to be in thermal equilibrium if there is no net energy exchange (or heat flow) between the two systems or their temperatures are equal.

This may seem too trivial to mention, until one gives it more thought. Suppose a piece of metal is to be dipped into an aquarium filled with sea water and we would want to know whether heat will then flow between them. You just have to measure the temperature of each and if they are the same, you can conclude that no net heat will flow. And if they’re different, heat will flow. Nothing else matters – not the type of metal, its shape and mass, the volume of water, whether the water has salt or not, etc – all that matters is one quantity, the temperature!

Example
A solid X is in thermal equilibrium with solid Y, which is at the same temperature as a third solid Z. The three bodies are of different material and masses. Which of the following is certainly correct?                                (N77P2Q25)

A    X and Y have the same heat capacity.
B    Y and Z have the same internal energy.
C    There is no net transfer of energy if X is placed in thermal contact with Z.
D    It is not necessary that Y should be in thermal equilibrium with Z.
E    It is not necessary that X should be the same temperature as Y.

Solution
A     False.  E.g : water and iron have different specific heat capacities but both can attain the same temperature.
B    False.  Object of a greater mass could have a greater internal energy because there are more molecules when mass is higher.
C    True.  According to the definition of thermal equilibrium.
D & E    False.  Objects at thermal equilibrium are also having the same temperature.

## Tuesday, September 18, 2012

### Evidences of need for Singapore schools to flip their classroom

was asked to contribute to flipped-classroom in singapore schools discussion here

decided to collate students' responses to help other teachers convince themselves of the need from students.

I am pretty convinced students do want to prepare for the lessons in school by going through some of the more basic materials so that they come to class to behave more intelligible :)
1. go through the materials that will be covered next week perhaps as a pre-lab activity
2. prepare to engage in deeper discussions in face to face class, perhaps do the real experiment
3. have access to the materials after the class for reflection and revision, perhaps can redo the experiments virtually

eduLab Java Simulation Design for Teaching and Learning

How to use a computer model http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wATJT1XpHlI

Extract selected student survey (evidence based discussions from Singapore schools)
from 1 Virtual Laboratory Ripple Tank Model (eduLab project scale YishunJC) D. FLIP-CLASSROOM1. yes, probably students should be directed to the website prior to the lab session and students should be clear of the aim whenever they do something using the tool.
2. should let students have the application before hand.
3. Students can be given the tool to use it on their own time to better facilitate learning.
4. to be directed to the website. T
5. yes, should let us try this tool at home first so that we can familiarize with it and make full use of it in school.
6. Students should be familiar with the tool at home before the lab session to enhance efficiency in lab-work.
7. I think we should just have a self-directed learning at home to do the activity.
8. Yes. This way, students would have time to find out more about the areas they do not understand and absorb the information in the experiments easily and quickly during the lesson"
from 2 Virtual Laboratory Collision Carts Model (eduLab project lead RVHS) D: AREA OF IMPROVEMENT - ACCESS TO COMPUTER MODEL

"2. i think this tool should be opened up to students before and after the lab lesson to allow them to have a better idea of what is going on

3. Yes, make it available for everyone, so we can try it at home."
3. We could be directed to use such applets before our tutorial, enhancing our concepts and honing our ability to answer questions better.
4. students should be directed to access the website during the different parts of the lecture to understand each concept better

from 4 Virtual Laboratory Realistic Collision Carts Model (eduLab project lead AJC) D: AREA OF IMPROVEMENT - ACCESS TO WORKSHEET and COMPUTER MODEL
1. It would be better if worksheets are given earlier so students would not waste time during the event.2. Yes, students should be directed to the website to download the tool first as a pre-lab test. Students will be familiarised with it and hence able to complete the given tasks quickly.
3. Being able to do this at home first would then allow time to be cut down on explaining the mechanics of the simulation and students would be able to start on the tasks and questions right away. It would seem to be more efficient this way.

from 5 Virtual Laboratory Collision Carts Model (eduLab project scale SRJC) D: AREA OF IMPROVEMENT - ACCESS TO COMPUTER MODEL1. I think that allowing the students to download the tool first as a pre-lab test at home first activity is a good idea as it allows the students to play around with the applet and understand how to use before the lesson itself. This will help enhance the effectiveness and productivity of the lesson.
2. Students to directed to the website to download the tool first as a pre-lab test at home first.
3. Yes. I feel students should be directed to the website to download the tool first as a pre-lab test at home as it helps them get a feel of what is the upcoming chapter is going to be regarding and after the lecture, they will understand the concepts that they previously have doubts about when they are doing the tool from the website.

from 6 Virtual Laboratory Collision Carts Model (eduLab project scale IJC) D: AREA OF IMPROVEMENT - ACCESS TO COMPUTER MODEL1.yes I think students should download it first as a pre-lab activity. So that they would know what to do during the actual lab experiment and thus saves more time.
2.The students could download the website to use it to understand better.
3.Personally, i feel that the suggestion mentioned for students to be directed to specific website to download the tool first as a pre-lab test at home is an ideal way to improve appreciation for various tools used in the lesson. That way, students (including me) would be able to comprehend the course of the lesson better and thus enhancing effectiveness.

## Monday, September 17, 2012

### Laser by PhET

 http://weelookang.blogspot.sg/2012/09/laser-by-phet.html simulation by PhET
 Click to Run

A LASER (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) is an optical source that emits photons in a coherent beam. Today, the laser has many applications e.g. to weld parts of the frame of cars together, measure distances, LASIK surgery, read CDs, DVDs, etc. Laser light is typically near-monochromatic, i.e. consisting of a single wavelength, and emitted in a narrow beam. This is in contrast to common light sources, such as incandescent light bulbs which emit incoherent photons (photons that have no constant phase relationship) in all directions.

The Production of Laser Beams
To understand the production of laser beams, we need to know the behaviour of electrons with reference to energy levels. First of all, we look at spontaneous emission, stimulated emission and population inversion.

Spontaneous emission
Spontaneous emission is the process by which an atom, molecule or nucleus in an excited state drops to a lower state, resulting in the formation and release of a photon.
 Spontaneous emission is the process by which an atom, molecule or nucleus in an excited state drops to a lower state, resulting in the formation and release of a photon. In this animated GIF, spontaneous emission occurs right after the atom is excited in Energy Level 2, E2 drops to E1 with a photon release.

 Consider an atom with two energy levels. Suppose an electron occupies the higher (RED 2) level.

 If the electron is left alone, it will eventually drop to the lower level (Level 1), giving off a photon (see left red photon emitted from atom 1 in the process

 The photon given off in this spontaneous emission process can propagate in any direction (random)

 The photon given off in this spontaneous emission process can propagate in any direction (random)

 The photon given off in this spontaneous emission process can propagate in any direction (random)

This process is known as spontaneous emission. The photon given off in this process can propagate in any direction.

The energy of the photon emitted is E = E2 - E1 = hf

where h is the Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s

and f the frequency of the photon
Stimulated Emission
 Phet Simulation World and Micro View Representation: Stimulated emission is a process whereby an atom has a higher probability of releasing a photon due to the disturbance of a passing photon, In this animated GIF, notice there are 3 times stimulated emission occurs per loop of the animation.
 Symbolic Representation: If an atom is already in the excited state, it may be perturbed by the passage of a photon that has a frequency ν21 corresponding to the energy gap ΔE of the excited state to ground state transition. In this case, the excited atom relaxes to the ground state, and is induced to produce a second photon of frequency ν21. The original photon is not absorbed by the atom, and so the result is two photons of the same frequency. This process is known as stimulated emission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_inversion
Stimulated emission is a process whereby an excited atom, when disturbed by an incident photon, has a higher probability of  releasing a photon of the same frequency and phase as the incident photon. The excited atom will also decay to a lower energy state.

http://www.physicsdaily.com/physics/Stimulated_emission (website on stimulated emission)

Again, consider two of the energy levels in an atom and the electron occupying the higher level. But instead of being left alone, an incident photon with energy equal to the energy difference between the two levels pass near the electron

This disturbance will increase the probability for the electron to drop to the lower level. This process is known as stimulated emission.

The photon given off in this process of stimulated emission
•    has the same energy (hence same frequency) as the incident photon
•    is in the same phase as the incident photon
•    propagates in the same direction as the incident photon

Example 1
The diagram shows three of the energy levels of an atom. An electron is currently in the n = 3 level. Will stimulated emission occur when a photon of frequency 2.46 x 1015 Hz passes near the electron?

 three of the energy levels of an atom

Solution:

E = h f = … = (6.626068 × 10-34)(2.46 x 1015) = 1.63 x 10-18 J = 1.63 x 10-18/1.6 x 10-19 J = 10.2 eV
By trial and error, E2 – E1 = 10.2 eV as well,
therefore, the photon will be successful in causing stimulated emission from n = 2 to n = 1.
see the animated GIF
 notice that for an atom in energy 3 state, the photon from the left is able to produced a stimulated emission for this 3 energy state atom.

Population Inversion
Goal:
In order for light amplification to work, it is necessary to have enough excited atoms for the photons to continue the process of stimulated emission.

Problem:
Under ordinary conditions, most electrons are in the lowest possible energy level. But by a process called population inversion, we can create an environment in which more electrons are found in the excited state than in the lower state.
Population inversion is about having a system (such as a group of atoms or molecules) with a large population of electrons in excited states than the ground state. This also requires the excited state to have a relatively long lifetime so that photons can continue to encounter excited electrons.

Once population inversion is achieved, the rate of stimulated emission > rate of (stimulated) absorption, thus, light amplification is possible.
 Consider the process of stimulated emission described above whereby a single photon entering an excited atom can cause two identical photons to exit the atom. If each of these two photons encounters other excited electrons and the same process takes place, the number of photons increases to four. If this process continues, we say that light amplification (amplifying the number of photons) has taken place

Production of a Laser Beam
three properties of a laser beam are:
The beam is
1. monochromatic (contains only one specific wavelength of light)
2. coherent (all photons have wave-fronts that launch in unison)
3. directional (the beam is narrow, and thus intense)

As the name suggests, the production of a laser beam can be briefly described by the process of light amplification and stimulated emission.
 using Phet Laser simulation, a laser is produced. thanks PhET, for the awesome simulation tool. :)

above shows a laser system and its three important parts:

a)    A laser medium (i.e. a glass tube or cavity containing gas atoms)
b)    An external energy source to give energy to the medium so as to “pump” the atoms to excited energy states and excited state of the system must be in a metastable state to enable electrons in this state to remain long enough for photons to stimulate them to a lower level. The energy is usually from an electrical discharge or an optical source such as another laser or a flash-lamp. When more atoms are in an excited state than the ground state, population inversion is created. If a photon of a certain energy encounters the excited atoms, stimulated emission can occur.
c)    Two parallel mirrors – one is totally reflective whereas the other, partially reflective (typically R = 0.95) – at each end of the cavity. The emitted photons travel back and forth in the space through the lasing material are confined between two reflecting surfaces long enough to allow them to stimulate further emission from other excited atoms for light amplification. The light energy is amplified in this manner until sufficient energy is built up for a burst of laser light to be transmitted through the partially reflecting mirror. The mirror acts as an optical resonator i.e. it allows continuous stimulated emission to occur.

Energy losses in the cavity include
1. stimulated absorption
2. scattering from defects in the laser medium
3. loss due to transmission
Note of cavity Length:
It is worthwhile to note that in order for the light to bounce back and forth in the cavity, it must be a stationary wave. Otherwise, it would interfere destructively with itself. The length, L, of the cavity and laser wavelength, λ, must satisfy L = n λ/2 where n is an integer.

The Mechanism of a Three-level Laser

 A three-level laser energy diagram, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_inversion

In the real world, three energy levels or more are required for laser action to take place. One of the three levels is a metastable energy level – required so as to enable electrons in this state to remain long enough for photons to stimulate them to a lower level.

The lasing medium is confined to a glass tube sealed at the ends by mirrors. A high voltage is applied or an optical source such as another laser or a flash-lamp, causing many of the atoms to be excited (pumped) from E1 to E3 .

The atoms then decay quickly to a metastable state E2* before undergoing stimulated emission provided a photon of a suitable energy encounters the excited atoms. Stimulated emissions release photons that travel in phase at the same wavelength and in the same direction as the incident photons.

The time spent in E3 is much less than in E2* (typically 10-8 s versus 10-3 s) so that the system will have more excited than ground-state atoms – this is population inversion.

For those photons travelling in a direction parallel to the optical axis of the mirror system, the emitted photons travel back and forth in the space through the lasing material. The light energy is then amplified until accumulation of sufficient energy which then causes a burst of laser light to be transmitted through the partially reflecting mirror.

To find the wavelength of laser beam, use

E2 - E1 = h c / λ whereby the symbols have their usual meanings.

http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/java/lasers/stimulatedemission/index.html
(website on animation of three- and four-level lasers)

 a 2 energy level laser is not possible because a population inversion cannot be achieved as probability for absorption and for spontaneous emission is exactly the same.
Why a Two-level Laser is not possible

For laser action, population inversion is required. A population inversion cannot be achieved with just two levels because the probability for absorption and for spontaneous emission is exactly the same. Also, the energy being used to pump the particles into the upper laser state has an equal probability of stimulating them back down.
Practically, the electrons revert back to ground level almost as fast as we pump them up to the upper level. Thus, it is not possible to get more than half of the particles into the excited state – no population inversion!
The lifetime of a typical excited state is about 10-8 s to 10-9 s.

Thinking Question:
Explain how it is possible to produce laser beams with different colors. For example, a helium-neon laser produces a red beam and an Argon laser produces a blue one.

Monochromatic means it contains one specific wavelength of light, hence one color. The reason why laser beams can be of different colors is due to different lasing media. Atoms of different elements have different metastable states. Since the wavelength of laser beam is determined by the energy difference between the metastable state and a lower energy state, different lasing media will result in laser beams of different colors.

Word Problem:

The diagram shows a simplified version of the energy level for the He-Ne laser. By setting up an electrical discharge in the helium-neon mixture, the electrons and ions in this discharge collide frequently enough with the helium atoms to raise many to level E3. This level is metastable, so that spontaneous emission back to the ground state occurs only very slowly.

Level E3 in helium (20.61 eV) is, by chance, very close to level E2 in neon (20.66 eV). Thus when a metastable helium atom and a ground state neon atom collide, the excitation energy of the helium atom is often transferred to the neon atom.

(a)    Determine the kinetic energy, in joules, the Helium atom must have so that it can raise the ground state neon atom to level E2. Assume all energy from Helium atom is given to the neon atom.

(b)    Calculate the energy level E1, in eV, which the neon atom reaches upon emitting a photon of wavelength 632.8 nm.

Solution:
(a)    By conservation of energy,
KE of He atom + energy of excited He atom = energy of excited Ne atom
KE of He atom = 20.66 – 20.61 = 0.05 eV = 8.0 x 10-21 J

(b)    Energy of photon = hc/λ    = (6.63 x 10-34)(3.0 x 108)/(632.8 x 10-9) = 3.14 x 10-19 J = 1.96 eV
E2 – E1 = hc/λ = 1.96
E1 = 20.66 – 1.96 = 18.70 eV

Reference:
notes from Yishun JC

## Thursday, September 13, 2012

### Open source physics is in beacon primary

Instructor: Sze Yee
Students:
24 from P5
16 from P4
CCA:New Media and Science club
Venue : 4/4 and 4/3 beacon primary school.
Date: 13 September 2012
Time: 1530-1700
The lesson details
http://iwant2study.org/
Simulation: roller coaster by Michael Gallis
Remixed version: Sze yee
This reminds of " Void of the pressures of curriculum time and outcomes, learning is fun and many a times more meaningful to life than just for 'A' in examinations "

Awesome!!

 CCA room full of students eagerly playing with the simulation, sze yee eliciting students responses
 classroom
 interesting students copy and paste data from EJS into Excel to investigate and discover the trend of Total Energy = Kinetic Energy + Potential Energy by keying in the Excel =C3+E3 into the right cells. i manage to teach some how to copy the formula down to the rest of the 9 cells below.

 interesting configuration in the custom track, too fun :) trying all sorts of paths, learn through play!

 http://iwant2study.org/easyjava/index.php/energy-change-in-roller-coasterhttp://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=2566.0http://weelookang.blogspot.sg/2012/09/open-source-physics-is-in-beacon-primary.htmlauthor: mike gallis remixed by engrg1

## Tuesday, September 11, 2012

### MOE ExCEL Fest 2013 Project Proposal Formwee.doc

update:
http://www.excelfest.com/EventSynopsis/Synopsis?id=YmZjNTEyZDYtMmYyYS02MjU5LTk1OTYtZmYwMDAwYmNmYzlk&Type=Exhibition
 Java Simulation Design for Teaching and Learning NRF2011- eduLab 001Teachers from River Valley High School, Yishun Junior College, Innova Junior College, Anderson Junior College, Serangoon Junior College and Educational Technology Division will showcase their customised computer models lesson packages. These lesson packages are designed to enable students to conduct scientific investigation-inquiry on collision carts, gravity physics, ripple tank, falling magnet through solenoid and waves computer models.These 5 computer model lessons have enabled students to become like scientists - experience and collect data as evidence to support their scientific thinking. This has made lessons meaningful and fun, and more importantly inspired curiosity and imagination among the students.All computer models (including the Innergy GOLD award 2012 gravity-physics by inquiry) and their lesson packages will be given away for free to participants as part of the innovative spreading of meaningful use of technology in education under the MOE-eduLab programme.http://www.excelfest.com/EventSynopsis/Synopsis?id=YmZjNTEyZDYtMmYyYS02MjU5LTk1OTYtZmYwMDAwYmNmYzlk&Type=Exhibition

Event:  MOE ExCEL Fest 2013
Updated 18 Jan 2013
Date: 05 and 06 April 2013
Venue: ITE College Central
Address: 2 Ang Mo Kio Drive, Singapore 567720
Title:  Java Simulation Design for Teaching and Learning
Website: http://www.excelfest.com/

Update 05 November 2012:
Accepted!
 Accepted! [ExCEL Fest 2013] Outcome of applicatio​ns to showcase project at ExCEL Fest 2013 (Exhibition]

 Project ID Type Level Zone Name of School Project Title Remarks Principal Email Email of Teacher In-Charge 1 CB2 Booth JC Innova Junior College Java Simulation Design for Teaching and Learning Combined Booth chia_siew_yong@moe.gov.sg ong_chee_wah@moe.edu.sg CB2 Booth JC Yishun Junior College Java Simulation Design for Teaching and Learning Combined Booth koh_teck_siew@moe.gov.sg goh_giam_hwee@moe.edu.sg CB2 Booth JC Serangoon Junior College Java Simulation Design for Teaching and Learning Combined Booth cheang_mei_heng@moe.gov.sg yeo_wee_leng@moe.edu.sg CB2 Booth JC Anderson Junior College Java Simulation Design for Teaching and Learning Combined Booth lee_seng_hai@moe.gov.sg goh_khoon_song@moe.edu.sg CB2 Booth JC River Valley High School (JC) Java Simulation Design for Teaching and Learning Combined Booth rvhs@moe.edu.sg xu_weiming@moe.edu.sg CB2 Booth JC ETD / NIE reps Java Simulation Design for Teaching and Learning wee_loo_kang@moe.gov.sg

MOE ExCEL Fest 2013 Project Proposal Form for Java Simulation Design for Teaching and Learning.
 Java Simulation Design for Teaching and Learning
version2: thanks to weiming for the edits
Has this exhibit / sharing session been shared beyond the school before?

Yes
1. 01-06 July 2012
2. 03 September, 2012
3. 03 September, 2012

At which platform?
1. Computer Models Design for Teaching and Learning using Easy Java Simulation 2012 World Conference on Physics Education Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Turkey
2. Inquiry Learning with Collision Carts Computer Model (eduLab Project) NanYang Junior College, EduTech Seminar, Singapore
3. Inquiry Learning with Ripple Tank Computer Model (eduLab Project) NanYang Junior College, EduTech Seminar, Singapore
To what audience?
1. World Physics researchers
2. Singapore Teachers
3. Singapore Teachers
Description of the exhibit / sharing session
What is this exhibit or sharing session about?

This project features the use of Easy Java Simulations and Open Source Physics to customise Physics simulations and lesson packages that are tailored to the requirements of Singapore teachers, with scalability due to its openness and customisability to the different needs of the schools.

The project’s key pedagogical method is the guided inquiry approach (Eick, Meadows, & Balkcom, 2005) through Singapore teacher-led customized computer models, worksheets and skilful facilitation, to enable students to conduct scientific investigation-inquiry on the computer models (Christian & Esquembre, 2012; L. K. Wee, Chew, Goh, Tan, & Lee, 2012) and propose/deduce physics concepts in agreement with the evidence/data collected in the computer models and real world.

All 9 computer models (including innergy GOLD award gravity-physics by inquiry) and the lesson packages will be given away to interested educators (bring your own thumbdrive/laptop). Do network with us and take the lead in your own primary or secondary school curriculum scale-up today.

Reason for the innovation
Why did you embark on it? What alternatives did you consider? Why is this innovation better than other alternatives? Has this innovation been attempted before elsewhere? Is it an adaptation of a current innovation?

Physics teachers have long appreciated that Experiential Lab (Dewey, 1958) as key to deepening learning, yet it is still not the extensive norm in schools, perhaps due to expensive and limited resources (physical setup and data-loggers) especially for one-to-one exploration. Thus, we created customized computer models to augment real life phenomena and enhance the experiential learning of abstract physical concepts.
While many would have used alternatives like PhET’s simulations (PhET, 2011) and other free content (Fendt, 2003), these good tools lack teacher-input on the design idea-features (L. K. Wee, 2010, 2012a, 2012c), posing challenges to maximize the effectiveness of the teachers’ pedagogical prowess (Esquembre, 2002).
Our open source physics (Christian, 2010; Christian, Esquembre, & Barbato, 2011; Esquembre, 2004) innovation is better because
1.   the realistic physics-equation driven models are backed by real world data for authenticity,
2.   the models are low-cost and customized according to our teachers’ needs and the syllabus and
3.   the innovative global community product tools license our lessons under creative commons attribution with the advantage of reaching out to a greater audience for solid feedback, affirmation and global educational benefit.
This innovation is also used by computational physicists (Belloni, Christian, & Mason, 2009; Brown, 2012; Christian & Esquembre, 2012; Cox & Christian, 2009; Duffy, 2010; Esquembre, 2010; Hwang, 2011; Timmberlake, 2010) around the world, particularly the USA, Spain and Taiwan.
Our NRF2011-eduLab 001 Java Simulation Design for Teaching and Learning project is funded by the National Research Fund (NRF) Singapore and Ministry of Education (MOE) Singapore, and is in essence an adaptation of the Open Source Physics’ (Christian, 2010) impactful research supported by National Science Foundation, USA, NSF DUE-0442581.

Benefits / Results
Who has benefited from this innovation? What are the benefits? What were the results achieved? What has changed as a result of the innovation? Please provide measurable data.

Approximately 1000 students and 30 teachers from 5 institutions have benefited from 5 lesson packages within less than a year; and the numbers are still rising as part of our eduLab (MOE, 2012, pp. 11-12) initiative.

The significant benefit is the empowerment of students to become like scientists, (Christian, et al., 2011; Jan, Chee, & Tan, 2010) who collect accurate data and evidence of physical concepts, thereby achieving “learn through play” (Lee, 2012).

Feedback from the students and teachers suggest that the well-designed (W. Adams et al., 2008; W. K. Adams et al., 2008; L. K. Wee, 2012c) computer models and its use in augmenting real equipment (Finkelstein et al., 2005; Olympiou & Zacharia, 2012), with skillful teacher (Hsu, Wu, & Hwang, 2007) guidance has been pivotal in improving experiential learning. Students report increased ease in visualising abstract and complex concepts through the multiple modes of representation (Gilbert, 2010; Wong, Sng, Ng, & Wee, 2011) afforded by the computer models.

Our research (Lim, Goh, Wee, & Lye, 2012; Ong, Ng, Goh, & Wee, 2012; L. K. L. Wee et al., 2012) reports positive standardized mean difference ranging from 0.19 to 0.30 from pre-post test scores and improved teacher understanding of the interactive engagement method of teaching.

Sustainability of the innovation
Did you sustain the innovation beyond its initial conception? How? Is this project still continuing in your school or was it a one-off implementation?

Open Source Physics is an internationally sustained innovation with the goal to accumulate and collate quality simulations with source code available for education using the GNU GPL open-source licensing model. Our work contributes to the same ideology of sharing quality computer models free for anyone to use and redistribute and we intend to scale up our lessons to all 22 pre-university institutions in Singapore and to the world.

This project is proto-typed in 5 schools with planned sustainability to impact curriculum, teaching and learning guides, teacher network learning with potential for scaling up through teacher leadership.

The innovation and findings have been presented in conferences and seminars. Also, with the already conducted and planned hands-on workshops through AST, we are expanding the pool of teacher leaders in the innovation.

Interactive elements of the innovation
Are there aspects of the innovation that are interesting and can be easily demonstrated? What are some ideas you have to showcase the project in an interactive and fun way for visitors at your exhibition booth/sharing session?

All computer models are freely downloadable from https://sites.google.com/site/lookang/ as well as the digital library at NTNU virtual lab (Hwang, 2010) http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?board=28.0 . There can also be provisions to give and demonstrate the models to visitors who may have brought their own devices/laptops.

With the help of ExCEL Fest management committee’s provision of interactive Smart Board or equivalent, participants and presenters can also collaboratively manipulate and share ways to learn and teach (L. K. Wee, 2012b) with the computer models, while allowing a larger audience to view the hands-on experience.

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., Reid, S., Lemaster, R., McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., Dubson, M., & Wieman, C. E. (2008). A Study of Educational Simulations Part 1 -- Engagement and Learning. [Article]. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(3), 397-419.
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. (2012). Tracker Free Video Analysis and Modeling Tool for Physics Education, from http://www.cabrillo.edu/~dbrown/tracker/
5. Christian, W. (2010). Open Source Physics (OSP) Retrieved 25 August, 2010, from http://www.compadre.org/osp/
6. Christian, W., & Esquembre, F. (2012, Jul 04, 2011 - Jul 06, 2011). Computational Modeling with Open Source Physics and Easy Java Simulations. Paper presented at the South African National Institute for Theoretical Physics Event, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
7. Christian, W., Esquembre, F., & Barbato, L. (2011). Open Source Physics. Science, 334(6059), 1077-1078. doi: 10.1126/science.1196984
8. Cox, A., & Christian, W. (2009). Electric Generator Model 1.0. from http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=9218&DocID=1236
9. Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature: Dover Pubns.
10. Duffy, A. (2010). Charge Trajectories in 3D Electrostatic Fields Model, from http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=9997&DocID=1631
11. Eick, C., Meadows, L., & Balkcom, R. (2005). Breaking into Inquiry: Scaffolding Supports Beginning Efforts to Implement Inquiry in the Classroom. Science Teacher, 72(7), 5.
12. Esquembre, F. (2002). Computers in physics education. Computer Physics Communications, 147(1-2), 13-18.
13. Esquembre, F. (2004). Easy Java Simulations: A software tool to create scientific simulations in Java. Computer Physics Communications, 156(2), 199-204.
14. Esquembre, F. (2010). Magnet Falling Through Ring Model 1.0. from http://www.compadre.org/portal/items/detail.cfm?ID=10327
15. Fendt, W. (2003, January 18, 2003). Elastic and Inelastic Collision Retrieved 6 February 2011, 2011, from http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14e/collision.htm
16. Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., . . . LeMaster, R. (2005). When Learning about the Real World is Better Done Virtually: A Study of Substituting Computer Simulations for Laboratory Equipment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1(1), 010103.
17. Gilbert, J. K. (2010). The role of visual representations in the learning and teaching of science: An introduction. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1).
18. Hsu, Y.-S., Wu, H.-K., & Hwang, F.-K. (2007). Factors Influencing Junior High School Teachers' Computer-Based Instructional Practices Regarding Their Instructional Evolution Stages. Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 118-130.
19. Hwang, F.-K. (2010). NTNU Virtual Physics Laboratory Retrieved 20 October, 2010, from http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php
20. Hwang, F.-K. (2011). Satellite motion in 3D, from http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=2245.0
21. 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.
22. Lee, H. L. (2012). National Day Rally 2012 Speech - A Home With Hope and Heart. Singapore: Retrieved from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/annex/ND2012_PMLEE_ENGTEXT.pdf.
23. Lim, A. P., Goh, K. S. A., Wee, L. K., & Lye, S. Y. (2012, 03 September). Inquiry Learning with Collision Carts Computer Model (eduLab Project). EduTech Seminar, U35, from http://weelookang.blogspot.sg/2012/08/edutech-2012-u35-inquiry-learning-with.html
24. MOE. (2012). Opening Address by Mr Hawazi Daipi, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Ministry of Education and Ministry of Manpower, at the International Conference on Teaching and Learning with Technology (iCTLT) at the Suntec International Convention and Exhibition Centre, on Thursday, 29 March 2012 Retrieved 29 March, 2012, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2012/03/29/opening-address-by-mr-hawazi-daipi-at-ictlt.php
25. Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: An effort to improve students' conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. [Article]. Science Education, 96(1), 21-47. doi: 10.1002/sce.20463
26. Ong, C. W., Ng, S. K., Goh, G. H. J., & Wee, L. K. (2012, 03 September). Inquiry Learning with Ripple Tank Computer Model (eduLab Project). EduTech Seminar, U28, from http://weelookang.blogspot.sg/2012/08/edutech-2012-u28-inquiry-learning-with.html
27. PhET. (2011). The Physics Education Technology (PhET) project at the University of Colorado at Boulder, USA from http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations/category/physics
28. Timmberlake, T. (2010). The Statistical Interpretation of Entropy: An Activity. The Physics Teacher, 48(8), 516-519. doi: 10.1119/1.3502501
29. Wee, L. K. (2010, July 17-21). AAPT 2010 Conference Presentation:Physics Educators as Designers of Simulations. 2012 AAPT Summer Meeting, from http://www.aapt.org/Conferences/sm2010/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=25474
31. http://weelookang.blogspot.com/2010/07/physics-educators-as-designers-of.html
32. Wee, L. K. (2012a, Feb 4-8). AAPT 2012 Conference Presentation:Physics Educators as Designers of Simulations. 2012 AAPT Winter Meeting, from http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=11711&DocID=2591
33. http://weelookang.blogspot.com/2012/02/aaptwm12.html
34. Wee, L. K. (2012b). Learning Physics using Open Source Physics Java Applets Learning Journey For iCTLT 2012 Foreign Delegates & Local Media, from http://weelookang.blogspot.sg/2012/03/edulabast-learning-journey-for-ictlt.html
35. Wee, L. K. (2012c). One-dimensional collision carts computer model and its design ideas for productive experiential learning. Physics Education, 47(3), 301.
36. Wee, L. K., Chew, C., Goh, G. H., Tan, S., & Lee, T. L. (2012). Using Tracker as a pedagogical tool for understanding projectile motion. Physics Education, 47(4), 448.
37. Wee, L. K. L., Lim, A. P., Goh, K. S. A., Lye, S. Y., Lee, T. L., Xu, W., . . . Lim, K. Y. T. (2012). Computer Models Design for Teaching and Learning using Easy Java Simulation Paper presented at the The World Conference on Physics Education Istanbul, Turkey.
38. 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.

version1:
Has this exhibit / sharing session been shared beyond the school before?

Yes
1. 01-06 July 2012
2. 03 September, 2012
3. 03 September, 2012

At which platform?

1. Computer Models Design for Teaching and Learning using Easy Java Simulation 2012 World Conference on Physics Education Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Turkey
2. Inquiry Learning with Collision Carts Computer Model (eduLab Project) NanYang Junior College, EduTech Seminar, Singapore
3. Inquiry Learning with Ripple Tank Computer Model (eduLab Project) NanYang Junior College, EduTech Seminar, Singapore

To what audience?

1. World Physics researchers
2. Singapore Teachers
3. Singapore Teachers

Description of the exhibit / sharing session

What is this exhibit or sharing session about?

This project’s key pedagogical method is the guided inquiry approach (Eick, Meadows, & Balkcom, 2005) through Singapore teacher lead customized computer models, worksheets and skilful teacher facilitation, to enable students to conduct scientific investigation-inquiry on the computer models (Christian & Esquembre, 2012; L. K. Wee, Chew, Goh, Tan, & Lee, 2012) and propose/deduce physics concepts in agreement with the evidence/data collected in the computer models and real world.

All 9 computer models (including innergy GOLD award gravity-physics by inquiry) and the lesson packages will be given away to interested educators (bring your own thumbdrive). Do network with us and lead in your own primary and secondary school curriculum scaling up today.

Reason for the innovation

Why did you embark on it? What alternatives did you consider? Why is this innovation better than other alternatives? Has this innovation been attempted before elsewhere? Is it an adaptation of a current innovation?

Experiential Lab (Dewey, 1958) is key to deepen learning that is still not the norm in schools perhaps due to expensive and limited resources (physical setup and data-loggers) especially for one student to one experimental exploration. Thus, we created customized computer models to support the experiencing with such physics concepts to augment such complementary physical real life setup. Alternatives like PhET’s simulations (PhET, 2011) and other free content (Fendt, 2003) are good tools but lacks the teachers’ own inputs on the design ideas-features (L. K. Wee, 2010, 2012a, 2012c) to maximize the effectiveness of the teachers’ pedagogical interest (Esquembre, 2002).
Our open source physics (Christian, 2010; Christian, Esquembre, & Barbato, 2011; Esquembre, 2004) innovation is better because 1) of the realistic physics-equation driven models with real world data, 2) low-cost and customized according to our teachers’ need and syllabus and 3) using innovative global community product tools and process licenses our lesson under creative commons attribution with the aim to benefit all humankind.
This innovation is used by computational physicists (Belloni, Christian, & Mason, 2009; Brown, 2012; Christian & Esquembre, 2012; Cox & Christian, 2009; Duffy, 2010; Esquembre, 2010; Hwang, 2011; Timmberlake, 2010) in the world, with USA, Spain and Taiwan being the more active.

Benefits / Results
Who has benefited from this innovation? What are the benefits? What were the results achieved? What has changed as a result of the innovation? Please provide measurable data.

1000 students and 30 teachers from 5 institutions have benefited from 5 lesson packages.

Significant benefit is our computer models allows students’ to become like scientists, (Christian, et al., 2011; Jan, Chee, & Tan, 2010) to collect accurate data and evidences thereby “learn through play” (Lee, 2012).

Feedback from the students and teachers suggests the well designed (W. Adams et al., 2008; W. K. Adams et al., 2008; L. K. Wee, 2012c) computer models and its use in classroom-as-laboratory to augment real equipment (Finkelstein et al., 2005; Olympiou & Zacharia, 2012) with skillful teachers (Hsu, Wu, & Hwang, 2007)’ guidance is key to improved experiential learning. Our research (Lim, Goh, Wee, & Lye, 2012; Ong, Ng, Goh, & Wee, 2012; L. K. L. Wee et al., 2012) reports positive standardized mean difference ranging from 0.19 to 0.30 from pre-post test scores and improved teacher understanding of interactive engagement method.

Sustainability of the innovation
Did you sustain the innovation beyond its initial conception? How? Is this project still continuing in your school or was it a one-off implementation?

Open Source Physics is an internationally substained innovation with the goal to make a large number of simulations together with source code available for education using the GNU GPL open-source licensing model. Our work contributes to the same idealogy to share quality computer models free for anyone to use and redistribute and we intend to scale up our lessons to 22 pre-universities institutions in Singapore and for the world.

This project is proto-typed in 5 schools with planned sustainability to impact curriculum, teaching and learning guide, teacher network learning with potential for scaling up through teacher leadership.

Interactive elements of the innovation
Are there aspects of the innovation that are interesting and can be easily demonstrated? What are some ideas you have to showcase the project in an interactive and fun way for visitors at your exhibition booth/sharing session?

All computer models are freely downable from https://sites.google.com/site/lookang/ as well as digital library at NTNU virtual lab (Hwang, 2010) http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?board=28.0

With the help of excel fest management committee’s provision of interactive Smart Board or equivalent, participants and presenters can collaboratively manipulate and sharing ways to learn and teach (L. K. Wee, 2012b) with the computer models, viewable to a larger audience interactively.

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., Reid, S., Lemaster, R., McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., Dubson, M., & Wieman, C. E. (2008). A Study of Educational Simulations Part 1 -- Engagement and Learning. [Article]. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(3), 397-419.
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. (2012). Tracker Free Video Analysis and Modeling Tool for Physics Education, from http://www.cabrillo.edu/~dbrown/tracker/
5. Christian, W. (2010). Open Source Physics (OSP) Retrieved 25 August, 2010, from http://www.compadre.org/osp/
6. Christian, W., & Esquembre, F. (2012, Jul 04, 2011 - Jul 06, 2011). Computational Modeling with Open Source Physics and Easy Java Simulations. Paper presented at the South African National Institute for Theoretical Physics Event, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
7. Christian, W., Esquembre, F., & Barbato, L. (2011). Open Source Physics. Science, 334(6059), 1077-1078. doi: 10.1126/science.1196984
8. Cox, A., & Christian, W. (2009). Electric Generator Model 1.0. from http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=9218&DocID=1236
9. Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature: Dover Pubns.
10. Duffy, A. (2010). Charge Trajectories in 3D Electrostatic Fields Model, from http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=9997&DocID=1631
11. Eick, C., Meadows, L., & Balkcom, R. (2005). Breaking into Inquiry: Scaffolding Supports Beginning Efforts to Implement Inquiry in the Classroom. Science Teacher, 72(7), 5.
12. Esquembre, F. (2002). Computers in physics education. Computer Physics Communications, 147(1-2), 13-18.
13. Esquembre, F. (2004). Easy Java Simulations: A software tool to create scientific simulations in Java. Computer Physics Communications, 156(2), 199-204.
14. Esquembre, F. (2010). Magnet Falling Through Ring Model 1.0. from http://www.compadre.org/portal/items/detail.cfm?ID=10327
15. Fendt, W. (2003, January 18, 2003). Elastic and Inelastic Collision Retrieved 6 February 2011, 2011, from http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14e/collision.htm
16. Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., . . . LeMaster, R. (2005). When Learning about the Real World is Better Done Virtually: A Study of Substituting Computer Simulations for Laboratory Equipment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1(1), 010103.
17. Hsu, Y.-S., Wu, H.-K., & Hwang, F.-K. (2007). Factors Influencing Junior High School Teachers' Computer-Based Instructional Practices Regarding Their Instructional Evolution Stages. Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 118-130.
18. Hwang, F.-K. (2010). NTNU Virtual Physics Laboratory Retrieved 20 October, 2010, from http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php
19. Hwang, F.-K. (2011). Satellite motion in 3D, from http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=2245.0
20. 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.
21. Lee, H. L. (2012). National Day Rally 2012 Speech - A Home With Hope and Heart. Singapore: Retrieved from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/annex/ND2012_PMLEE_ENGTEXT.pdf.
22. Lim, A. P., Goh, K. S. A., Wee, L. K., & Lye, S. Y. (2012, 03 September). Inquiry Learning with Collision Carts Computer Model (eduLab Project). EduTech Seminar, U35, from http://weelookang.blogspot.sg/2012/08/edutech-2012-u35-inquiry-learning-with.html
23. Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: An effort to improve students' conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. [Article]. Science Education, 96(1), 21-47. doi: 10.1002/sce.20463
24. Ong, C. W., Ng, S. K., Goh, G. H. J., & Wee, L. K. (2012, 03 September). Inquiry Learning with Ripple Tank Computer Model (eduLab Project). EduTech Seminar, U28, from http://weelookang.blogspot.sg/2012/08/edutech-2012-u28-inquiry-learning-with.html
25. PhET. (2011). The Physics Education Technology (PhET) project at the University of Colorado at Boulder, USA from http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations/category/physics
26. Timmberlake, T. (2010). The Statistical Interpretation of Entropy: An Activity. The Physics Teacher, 48(8), 516-519. doi: 10.1119/1.3502501
27. Wee, L. K. (2010, July 17-21). AAPT 2010 Conference Presentation:Physics Educators as Designers of Simulations. 2012 AAPT Summer Meeting, from http://www.aapt.org/Conferences/sm2010/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=25474
29. http://weelookang.blogspot.com/2010/07/physics-educators-as-designers-of.html
30. Wee, L. K. (2012a, Feb 4-8). AAPT 2012 Conference Presentation:Physics Educators as Designers of Simulations. 2012 AAPT Winter Meeting, from http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=11711&DocID=2591
31. http://weelookang.blogspot.com/2012/02/aaptwm12.html
32. Wee, L. K. (2012b). Learning Physics using Open Source Physics Java Applets Learning Journey For iCTLT 2012 Foreign Delegates & Local Media, from http://weelookang.blogspot.sg/2012/03/edulabast-learning-journey-for-ictlt.html
33. Wee, L. K. (2012c). One-dimensional collision carts computer model and its design ideas for productive experiential learning. Physics Education, 47(3), 301.
34. Wee, L. K., Chew, C., Goh, G. H., Tan, S., & Lee, T. L. (2012). Using Tracker as a pedagogical tool for understanding projectile motion. Physics Education, 47(4), 448.
35. Wee, L. K. L., Lim, A. P., Goh, K. S. A., Lye, S. Y., Lee, T. L., Xu, W., . . . Lim, K. Y. T. (2012). Computer Models Design for Teaching and Learning using Easy Java Simulation Paper presented at the The World Conference on Physics Education Istanbul, Turkey.

## Monday, September 10, 2012

### Singapore has 15 year old coding in physics using easy java simulation

http://gigaom.com/europe/estonias-plan-to-get-6-year-olds-coding-is-a-stroke-of-genius/

Inspire by this story, I can say that Singapore has 15 year old coding in physics using easy java simulation.
In river valley high school, under the mentorship of Lee T L and part time advisor lookang, a small number of students 5 I believe, have selected to design computer model using easy java simulation authoring toolkit.

Under the Edulab project, we have planned to get students to learn by making or constructionism.
As this is pretty high on pedagogy , it is difficult to get the whole 200+ cohort on any school to do.

Some reasons why we were able to do this learning by making computer models are:

TPACK strong teachers, currently only tat LEONG, sze yee and myself in singapore schools can mentor these kinds of student project. But if you are keen, do drop a comment so we all come together to learn from each other. You can also sign up for workshops that Sze yee and lookang are conducting (picture) and the trasi code 70388 (gravity physics by inquiry) and 70391(physics easy java simulation both 70391-0001 and 70391-0002)

Learning Room or space in the structure of the school curriculum. RVHS requires students to initiate such project based learning in sec 3 as part of their core learning which is part of a grade in a subject I guess.

Visionary school leadership, I don't have to remind anyone the important role of leaders. Screw this up, teachers and students will be 'humping over' -spending a great deal of time and effort - examination scores over real learning that matters in life.

Did I cover everything?

It is a stroke of genius, the genius stroke is in the implementation at nation wide, at six year old. It is really amazing.
My guess is the Estonians people and the political leaders see the niche for the people, and has the right people to pull it off.
Well done!!

## Thursday, September 6, 2012

### Research Proposal on Gravity Physics by Inquiry Repost!

Research on Gravity Physics by Inquiry to be conducted in 2013.
sharing only scholarly ideas, drop me a line if you see secretive or confidential materials here.

 screen shot of the gravity physics computer models, an INNERGY AWARD gold MOEHQ 2012
Abstract:

In the study of Newtonian theoretical gravity concepts, the collection of scientific data is key to enactment of essential features of inquiry (Eick, Meadows, & Balkcom, 2005). Word problem solving 'pedagogy' (Ng & Lee, 2009) is not only a pedagogical mismatch (L. C. McDermott, 1993), sending students on field trips into outer-space is also untenable from safety and economic standpoints. Thus, researchers have created simulations (Lindsey, 2012; PhET, 2011) to allow multiple visualization (Gilbert, 2010; Wong, Sng, Ng, & Wee, 2011) of these difficult concepts but they are usually meant for their own specific context.

Therefore, our research and development is on customized computer models (Wee & Mak, 2009) using the Easy Java Simulation authoring toolkit (Christian & Esquembre, 2012; Christian, Esquembre, & Barbato, 2011; Esquembre, 2010a; F. K. Hwang & Esquembre, 2003) that are not only tailored to the Singapore syllabus but will be free, based on astronomical data, supported with literature reviewed researched pedagogical features. These new computer models serves to support the enactment of scientific work that are inquiry-centric and evidence-based that are more likely to promote enjoyment and inspire imagination having ‘experienced’ gravity-physics than tradtional pen paper problem solving.

Our MOE useable research question lies in the 1) pedagogical design ideas-principles of computer models (Wee, 2012; Wee, Chew, Goh, Tan, & Lee, 2012) and 2) using the dimensions of scaling up (Dede, 2007) to further understand how these inquiry-enabled computer models were used to benefit from the 5 study sites-schools to 22 pre-universities centres across the nation and beyond.

Agenda: Curriculum, Assessment, Pedagogy and Instruction

Purpose: Development of Resources or Instruments

Target Level and Type of Students: Junior College Special/Express

Objectives in order of Priority
1. Research and develop on computer models (ICT-enabled inquiry pedagogy) further customize with pedagogical design ideas-principles [winner of innergy gold award (MOE, 2012) for ETD and AST ] to promote enriched learning experiences and behaving like scientists.
2. Co-Design activities with teachers with use with computer models, thereby building school capacity in planning and implementation of this ICT-enabled inquiry pedagogy.
3. Using the dimensions of scaling up to understand how these computer model lessons are sustainable in the 5 schools and scalable for 22 pre-universities centres across the nation system wide adoption.
4. Synthesize report and recommend further actions for MOE
5. Publish 1 or 2 peer-reviewed journals and share research with all Singapore physics teachers through free assess to journal articles.
6. To conduct a literature review of existing efforts to use computer models in the area of gravity physics, for inquiry-based learning.
Potential Applications

Pedagogy: This is a pedagogy extension of science as inquiry (L. McDermott, Shaffer, & Rosenquist, 1995; Wee, Lee, & Goh, 2011) into CPDD’s (MOE, 2011, p. 35) Science Curriculum Framework into the use with computer models, especially for gravity-physics that currently does not have any accessible real-life laboratory setup.

Policy: Setup a Singapore National digital library (Christian, 2012) of computer models situated in the Open Source Physics authoring toolkit serving the world licensed under creative commons attribution. This policy sets the stage for benefiting the world as well as singapore teachers as tradtional approaches of edumall repository have limited impact on classrooms practices.

Potential: This is a potential for collaboration with Open Source Physics (Brown, 2012; Christian, 2010; Christian, et al., 2011; F.-K. Hwang, 2010) research group. Many MOE projects have scaling up difficulties due to adoption of tradtional development of 1) outsourcing to vendors and 2) paying high costs to develop and scale these projects to school. A Singapore National digital library of computer models can be developed for a small fraction of the costs traditionally associated with current MOE funded projects.The good news is DGE HO Peng and senior management have already given high commendations to this gravity-physics gold innergy award proposal on 03May 2012 during the PS21 presentation.

Collaborations: Join me ?

Schedule:

 Quarters/ Research Milestones Year 1 Year 2 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 1  Discussion with collaborating 5 schools & 25 teachers x 2  Case Study Design / Plan x 3  Literature review x x x x 4  Finalise case study plan x 5  Preparation for study x x 6  Discussion with collaborating 5 schools & 25 teachers x 7  Resource development x x 8  Training x x 9  Implementation x 10  Data collection x 11  Data collation x 12  Discussion with collaborating 5 schools & 25 teachers x 13  Data analyse x 14  Preliminary report x x 15  Investigate possibilities x x 16  Write paper proposals x x 17  Discussion with collaborating 5 schools & 25 teachers x 18  Final reporting x 19  Mass briefing sharing or workshop x 20  Scale up research to 22 schools invitation to use lesson packages x x x x 21  Journals published ( peer review to paper editing to publish typically take 6 months to 1 year thus it is not realistic to pay out in duration of project of 12 months ) x x x

Start Date: 1 April 2013
End Date: 31 March 2014

Case Support

Title: Gravity-Physics by Inquiry

Proposed Start Date and Completion Date: 01 April 2013 – 31 March 2014

Purpose:

The purpose of this research is to develop computer models with appriopriate pedagogical features (Wee, 2012; Wee, et al., 2012) to enable engaging and effective physics by inquiry (L. McDermott, et al., 1995; Wee, et al., 2011) on abstract concepts in gravity (SEAB, 2010a, 2010b).

Rationale:

In the study of Newtonian invisible and theoretical gravity concepts, the collection of scientific data is key to enactment of essential features of inquiry (Eick, et al., 2005). Word problem solving 'pedagogy' (Ng & Lee, 2009) is not only a pedagogical mismatch (L. C. McDermott, 1993), sending students on field trips into outer-space is also untenable from safety and economic standpoints. Thus, some researchers have created simulations (Lindsey, 2012; PhET, 2011) to allow multiple visualization (Gilbert, 2010; Wong, et al., 2011) of these difficult concepts but they are meant for their own specific context.

Therefore, our research aims to develop customized computer models (Wee & Mak, 2009) that are not only tailored to the Singapore syllabus but will be free, based on astronomical data, with pedagogical features and research validated. These new computer models serves to support the enactment of scientific work that are inquiry-centric and evidence-based that we argue are more likely to promote enjoyment of experiencing physics than tradtional pen paper problem solving.

Our MOE useable research question lies in the 1) pedagogical design ideas-principles of computer models (Wee, 2012; Wee, et al., 2012) and 2) scaling up (Dede, 2007) principles of these inquiry-enabled computer models that emerged from this study with the aim to benefit the 22 pre-universities centres across the nation and beyond.
Specific Objectives:
1. To conduct a literature review of existing efforts to use computer models in the area of gravity physics, for inquiry-based learning.
2. Design and further customize gravity physics computer models to suit inquiry-based learning
3. Co-Design activities with teachers with use with computer models
4. Implement inquiry learning lessons in schools with research focus
5. Synthsize report and recommend further actions for MOE
6. Scaling up (Dede, 2007) or translation research (Brabeck, 2008)
7. Publish 1 or 2 peer-reviewed journals and share research with all Singapore physics teachers through free assess to journal articles

Literature review:

Key to the literature review process is the access to these reputable scholarly works by paying for the full articles in order to glean the full research insights already published.

From some of the freely scholarly works, which our research aims to be as well by paying for the prepetual hosting in these scholarly publishers, the research on use of computer models in the area of gravity physics in under-researched on.

From the very limited number of Physics Education research papers on gravity concepts, it is clear our proposal research field is in need of more freely assessible and useful research. Gravity physics education has been a largely difficult topic especially when students habor alternate mental models (Watts, 1982) with research techniques with interviews can yield students cognitive structure (Osborne & Gilbert, 1980).

With the advances made in recent times with computer in science education (DiSessa, 1987; Ellington, 1981), many research has been conducted in the area of virtual laboratory (Finkelstein et al., 2005; F.-K. Hwang, 2001, 2010; Jara et al., 2009; Nancheva & Stoyanov, 2005; Sánchez et al., 2005) and computer supported data loggers (Darren, Paul, & See, 2010; Sokoloff, Laws, & Thornton, 2007; Sokoloff & Thornton, 1997; Thornton & Sokoloff, 1990, 1998).

The research on effectiveness of use of virtual laboratory has been established (W. K. Adams, 2010; Wendy K. Adams, Paulson, & Wieman, 2008; Finkelstein, et al., 2005; Perkins et al., 2006) with researchers at the Open Source Physics project (Brown, 2009; Christian, 2010; Christian, et al., 2011; F. K. Hwang & Esquembre, 2003; Wee, 2012) and the Physics Education Technology (PhET) project at the University of Colorado at Boulder, USA, clearly indicate the currency of research and computers simulations and models that support interactive engagement (Hake, 1998), suited for inquiry learning.

Thus, with the deep TPCK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and skills in the team, our research aims to build on the research artifacts and findings to create customized (Wee & Mak, 2009) computer models and associated lesson packages to advance the field of use of computers in education in the area of learning with technology (Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1999).

Our theoretical contribution to research will be on the pedagogical design ideas-principles (Wee, 2012; Wee, et al., 2012) on these computer models that are built using astronomical data, syllabus-customized, free and rapidly prototype with Open Source Physics researchers.

The practice research focus on scaling up (Dede, 2007) the use of these computer models and inquiry pedagogy through MOEHQ targeting the 22 pre-universities centres.

Research Design and Methods:
1. Literature Review on the state of simulations use in educational gravity physics.
2. Literature Review of the pedagogical designs in existing educational gravity physics
3. Stage 1 of Implementation of sound pedagogical designs into proposal’s computer models
4. Discussion with teachers on these computer model design and customization needed for they to use the lesson packages more effectively.
5. Stage 2 of Implementation of sound pedagogical designs into proposal’s computer models
6. Co-design Lesson package with teachers
7. Implementation of lesson package
8. Lesson video recording and observation
9. FGD Discussion with students and teachers
10. Stage 3 of Implementation of sound pedagogical designs into proposal’s computer models
11. Journal Paper publishing
12. Report writing to inform MOE with findings and recommendations
13. Scale up lesson packages to 22 pre-universities centre in Singapore
14. Workshop and Mass briefing
15. Stage 4 of enhanced pedagogical designs into proposal’s computer models

Table 1: Comparative Advantage of Design of exisiting software (Left) and the proposal’s (Right) original computer model (Right Top) and the level of research and customization to a new computer model (Right Bottom)

 NOT SHOWN Figure 1.    Solar System 3D Simulator by Science Fair Projects World from http://download.cnet.com/3D-Solar-System/3000-2054_4-10137866.html?tag=rbxcrdl1 suitable for visualization but lack scientific data necessary for inquiry learning such as missing key variables like time lapsed, ability to create a new planet etc Figure 2.    Kepler System Model (Timberlake, 2010) (top) and our customized model (Timberlake & Wee, 2011) (lower) our model is focused and can simulate all planets moving at the same time,  better graphics of the planets, can create new planet key for inquiry learning. NOT SHOWN Figure 4.    Earth and Moon Model (Esquembre, 2010b) (top) and our customized model (Wee & Esquembre, 2010) (lower) the customization created to focus learning and teaching objectives without complicated controls, with references made to geographic location of Singapore. No existing simulation that covers this aspect of gravity concepts. This is the closest related concept on electric fields    NOT SHOWN   Figure 5.    Phet Charges and Fields that allows related concepts to gravity masses and fields and potential visualization Figure 6.    Point Charge Electric Field in 1D Model (Duffy, 2009) (top) and our customized model (Duffy & Wee, 2010a) (lower) notice play button is previous not available and additional potential V or φ concept. NOT SHOWN                        Figure 7.    Gravity 1.3 by Uranisoft http://www.uranisoft.com/gravity/ shows a Earth Moon Model (left) and an escape velocity from Earth (right) lack scientific data, 3D visualization engine and looks outdated though we did not evaluate the full software, we report only the information available on their website. Figure 8.    Point Charge Electric Field in 1D Model (Duffy, 2009) (top) and our customized model (Duffy & Wee, 2010b) (lower) notice real astronomical data are programmed as that the values reflect actual numerical calculated from actual experimental and theoretical experiments.

Thus, from the table above, the comparative advantage is in the deep customization (Wee & Mak, 2009) the needs of Singapore syllabus and spanning comprehensive scenarios associated with gravity-physics concepts at ‘A” level for more personalized (Freund & Piotrowski, 2003) learning.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

1. To complete a literature review of existing efforts to use computer models in the area of gravity physics, for inquiry learning.
2. Design and further customize 4 gravity physics computer models to suit inquiry learning
3. Co-Design activities with teachers with use with computer models
4. Implement inquiry learning lessons in schools with research focus
5. Synthsize report and recommend further actions for MOE
6. Publish 1 or 2 peer-reviewed journals and share research with all Singapore physics teachers through free assess to journal articles

Reference:
1. Adams, W. K. (2010). Student engagement and learning with PhET interactive simulations. NUOVO CIMENTO- SOCIETA ITALIANA DI FISICA SEZIONE C, 33(3), 21-32.
2. Adams, W. K., Paulson, A., & Wieman, C. E. (2008, July 23-24). What Levels of Guidance Promote Engaged Exploration with Interactive Simulations? Paper presented at the Physics Education Research Conference, Edmonton, Canada.
3. Brabeck, M. (2008). Why We Need 'Translational Research', Editorial, Education Week, pp. 36-28. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32454766&site=ehost-live
4. Brown, D. (2009). Video Modeling with Tracker. Paper presented at the American Association of Physics Teachers AAPT Summer Meeting, Ann Arbor. http://cabrillo.edu/~dbrown/tracker/video_modeling.pdf
5. Brown, D. (2012). Tracker Free Video Analysis and Modeling Tool for Physics Education, from http://www.cabrillo.edu/~dbrown/tracker/
6. Christian, W. (2010). Open Source Physics (OSP) Retrieved 25 August, 2010, from http://www.compadre.org/osp/
7. Christian, W. (2012). Building a National Digital Library for Computational Physics Education Podcast.
8. Christian, W., & Esquembre, F. (2012, Jul 04, 2011 - Jul 06, 2011). Computational Modeling with Open Source Physics and Easy Java Simulations. Paper presented at the South African National Institute for Theoretical Physics Event, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
9. Christian, W., Esquembre, F., & Barbato, L. (2011). Open Source Physics. Science, 334(6059), 1077-1078. doi: 10.1126/science.1196984
10. Darren, W., Paul, L., & See, K. (2010). A datalogger demonstration of electromagnetic induction with a falling, oscillating and swinging magnet. [Article]. Physics Education, 45(4), 394-401.
11. Dede, C. (2007). Exploring the Process of Scaling Up. Harvard University. Retrieved from http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic86033.files/Process_of_Scaling_Up_-_T561_scaling.pdf & http://www.peecworks.org/PEEC/PEEC_Reports/051F8D99-007EA7AB.14/The%20Process%20of%20Scaling%20Up.pdf
12. DiSessa, A. A. (1987). The third revolution in computers and education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 343-367. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660240407
13. Duffy, A. (2009). Point Charge Electric Field in 1D Model, from http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=9411&DocID=1574
14. Duffy, A., & Wee, L. K. (2010a). Ejs Open Source Gravitational Field & Potential of 2 Mass Java Applet, from http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=1921.0
15. Duffy, A., & Wee, L. K. (2010b). Ejs Open Source Gravitational Field & Potential of Earth and Moon Java Applet, from http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=1924.0
16. Eick, C., Meadows, L., & Balkcom, R. (2005). Breaking into Inquiry: Scaffolding Supports Beginning Efforts to Implement Inquiry in the Classroom. Science Teacher, 72(7), 5.
17. Ellington, H. (1981). Games and Simulations in Science Education: Nichols Publishing Company, PO Box 96, New York, NY 10024.
18. Esquembre, F. (2010a). Easy Java Simulations Retrieved 20 October, 2010, from http://www.um.es/fem/Ejs/Ejs_en/index.html
19. Esquembre, F. (2010b). Ejs Open Source Earth and Moon Model 1.0. from http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=1830.0
20. Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., . . . LeMaster, R. (2005). When Learning about the Real World is Better Done Virtually: A Study of Substituting Computer Simulations for Laboratory Equipment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1(1), 010103.
21. Freund, R., & Piotrowski, M. (2003, October 6-8). Mass customization and personalization in adult education and training. Paper presented at the 2nd Interdisciplinary World Congress, Munich, Germany.
22. Gilbert, J. K. (2010). The role of visual representations in the learning and teaching of science: An introduction. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1).
23. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74. doi: 10.1119/1.18809
24. Hwang, F.-K. (2001). NTNU Java Development Kit JDK1.0.2 simulations (1996-2001) Virtual Physics Laboratory Retrieved 20 October, 2010, from http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?action=collapse;c=2;sa=expand;sesc=97732e6bc4f3972fef4892ad005cce7f#2
25. Hwang, F.-K. (2010). NTNU Virtual Physics Laboratory Retrieved 20 October, 2010, from http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php
26. Hwang, F. K., & Esquembre, F. (2003). Easy java simulations: An interactive science learning tool. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer - Enhanced Learning, 5.
27. Jara, C. A., Candelas, F. A., Torres, F., Dormido, S., Esquembre, F., & Reinoso, O. (2009). Real-time collaboration of virtual laboratories through the Internet. Computers and Education, 52(1), 126-140.
28. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology : a constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.
29. Lindsey, C. S. (2012). Physics Simulations with Java - Lecture 13B: Introduction to Java Networking - NASA's Observatorium - Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion Retrieved 01 April, 2012, from http://www.particle.kth.se/~fmi/kurs/PhysicsSimulation/Lectures/13B/index.html
30. McDermott, L., Shaffer, P., & Rosenquist, M. (1995). Physics by inquiry: John Wiley & Sons New York.
31. McDermott, L. C. (1993). Guest Comment: How we teach and how students learn---A mismatch? American Journal of Physics, 61(4), 295-298.
32. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
33. 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 http://subjects.edumall.sg/subjects/slot/u1025854/Handbook%20for%20Teaching%20Secondary%20Physics.pdf
34. MOE. (2012). MOE Innergy Awards: MOE Innergy (HQ) Awards Winners : Gold Award :Educational Technology Division and Academy of Singapore Teachers: Gravity-Physics by Inquiry Retrieved 25 May, 2012, from http://www.excelfest.com/award
35. Nancheva, N., & Stoyanov, S. (2005). Simulations laboratory in Physics Distance Education. Paper presented at the Multimedia in Physics Teaching and Learning (EPS - MPTL 10), Berlin.
36. Ng, S. F., & Lee, K. (2009). The Model Method: Singapore Children's Tool for Representing and Solving Algebraic Word Problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(3), 32.
37. Osborne, R. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (1980). A technique for exploring students' views of the world. Physics Education, 15(6), 376.
38. 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
39. PhET. (2011). The Physics Education Technology (PhET) project at the University of Colorado at Boulder, USA from http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations/category/physics
40. Sánchez, J., Esquembre, F., Martín, C., Dormido, S., Dormido-Canto, S., Canto, R. D., . . . Urquía, A. (2005). Easy java simulations: An open-source tool to develop interactive virtual laboratories using MATLAB/Simulink. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(5 PART I AND II), 798-813.
41. SEAB. (2010a). Physics Higher 1 2011 8866. Retrieved from GCE A-Level Syllabuses Examined in 2011 website: http://www.seab.gov.sg/aLevel/20102011Syllabus/8866_2011.pdf
42. SEAB. (2010b). Physics Higher 2 2011 9646. Retrieved from GCE A-Level Syllabuses Examined in 2011 website: http://www.seab.gov.sg/aLevel/20102011Syllabus/9646_2011.pdf
43. Sokoloff, D. R., Laws, P. W., & Thornton, R. K. (2007). RealTime Physics: active learning labs transforming the introductory laboratory. European Journal of Physics, 28, S83.
44. Sokoloff, D. R., & Thornton, R. K. (1997). Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment. The Physics Teacher, 35(6), 340-347. doi: 10.1119/1.2344715
45. Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1990). Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58(9), 858-867. doi: 10.1119/1.16350
46. Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338-352. doi: 10.1119/1.18863
47. Timberlake, T. (2010). Kepler System Model 1.0. from http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=9757&DocID=1451
48. Timberlake, T., & Wee, L. K. (2011). Ejs Open Source Kepler 3rd Law System Model Java Applet 1.0. from http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=2225.0
49. Watts, D. M. (1982). Gravity - don't take it for granted! Physics Education, 17(3), 116.
50. Wee, L. K. (2012). One-dimensional collision carts computer model and its design ideas for productive experiential learning. Physics Education, 47(3), 301.
51. Wee, L. K., Chew, C., Goh, G. H., Tan, S., & Lee, T. L. (2012). Using Tracker as a pedagogical tool for understanding projectile motion. Physics Education, 47(4), 448.
52. Wee, L. K., & Esquembre, F. (2010). Ejs Open Source Geostationary Satellite around Earth Java Applet 1.0. from http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=1877.0
53. Wee, L. K., Lee, T. L., & Goh, J. (2011, 10 November). Physics by Inquiry with Simulations Design for Learning Paper presented at the The Academy Symposium, Singapore.
54. Wee, L. K., & Mak, W. K. (2009, 02 June). Leveraging on Easy Java Simulation tool and open source computer simulation library to create interactive digital media for mass customization of high school physics curriculum. Paper presented at the 3rd Redesigning Pedagogy International Conference, Singapore.
55. 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.