Tuesday, February 10, 2015

SciEP Science and Education Publishing Co. Ltd American Journal of Educational Research


decided to give the SciEP Science and Education Publishing Co. Ltd American Journal of Educational Research the rights to publish our paper :) I probably could be equally successful in sending to IOP Physics Education but since American Journal of Educational Research reviewer already gave sound inputs, i decided to go ahead with SciEP Science and Education Publishing Co. Ltd.



the reasons for publishing with are SciEP Science and Education Publishing Co. Ltd American Journal of Educational Research:
  1. reviewers comments were useful and encouraging to sharpen the paper.
  2. open access USD 320 about SGD 450, research funded
  3. well represented including Singapore editorial board


Accepted!

SciEP Science and Education Publishing Co. Ltd

Manuscript Title: Performance Task using Video Analysis and Modelling to promote practices of science
Manuscript ID: 1300100788
Author's Name: Loo Kang Wee, Tze Kwang Leong
http://mts.sciepub.com/author/AcceptedManuscripts
http://mts.sciepub.com/author/index

Copyright

The copyright of this article is transferred to Science and Education Publishing effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. The copyright transfer covers the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute the article, including reprints, translations, photographic reproductions, microform, electronic form or any other reproductions of similar nature.
On behalf of all authors, as the corresponding author of the manuscript, I warrant that

1. All authors participated in the work in a substantive way and are prepared to take public responsibility for the work;
2. All authors have seen and approved the manuscript as submitted;
3. The manuscript submitted is my/our own original work;
4. The manuscript has not been published before and is not being considered for publication elsewhere in its final form either in printed or electronic form;
5. The text, illustrations and any other materials included in the manuscript do not infringe upon any existing copyright or other rights of anyone.
6. I/We empower the Publisher to make any necessary editorial changes to the submitted manuscript;
7. All sources of funding of the work have been fully disclosed;
8. The Editor of the Journal and the Publisher are empowered to make such editorial changes as may be necessary to make the Article suitable for publication. Every effort will be made to consult the Author if substantive changes are required.

Notwithstanding the above, the Contributor(s) or, if applicable the Contributor’s Employer, retain(s) all proprietary rights other than copyright, such as
1. Patent rights;
2. To use, free of charge, all parts of this article for the author’s future works in books, lectures, classroom teaching, or oral presentations;
3. The right to reproduce the article for their own purposes provided the copies are not offered for sale.

All materials related to manuscripts, accepted or rejected, including photographs, original figures etc., will be kept by Publisher for one year following the editor’s decision. These materials will then be destroyed.

As the corresponding author, I also warrant that “Publisher and the Journal Editors” will not be held liable against all copyright claims of any third party or in lawsuits that may be filed in the future, and that I will be the only person who will be liable in such cases. I also warrant that the article contains no libelous or unlawful statements, I/we did not use any unlawful method or material during the research, I/we obtained all legal permissions pertaining to the research, and I/we adhered to ethical principles during the research.


The Review Form

SciEP Journal Review Form

Instructions: The journal is committed to high academic standards, treating publication as a collaborative process between Author, Reviewers and Editors. The goal of the peer review process is to improve the academic and scientific quality of the submissions. Reviewers will work with the Author through a collaborative process to ensure academic and scientific integrity.
Constructive criticism is a necessary part of this collaborative effort and as such shall be offered and received in a professional manner. Reviewers are expected to return their reviews within 10 days, unless otherwise specified by the Editor.
Thank you! Your help is highly appreciated.

Manuscript Number

1300100788

Manuscript Title

Performance Task using Video Analysis and Modelling to promote K12 eight practices of science

Journal Name

American Journal of Educational Research Overview (Please rate each item by typing letter x in the appropriate box)

General Comments

The paper deals with the effect of Tracker as a pedagogical tool in the effective learning of physics. Active learning is the timely topic in the present education and the authors clearly state its importance in the section ``Why?”. In order to overcome the weakness of the traditional lesson, a series of instructional videos are created by the authors and these videos promote the understanding of the physics. Main result sounds interesting but its explanation is a bit ambiguous. Furthermore, English of this paper has to be improved since the understanding suffers because of its poor English. So, the paper must be accepted after the
revision. Other concerns including these two points will be given below.

Strengths of manuscript

1. The result is meaningful, that is, students enjoy and look forward to physics lessons, and feel that physics is interesting subject after performing tasks using the Tracker.
2. The authors created instructional videos to promote the understanding of the physics.
3. The paper deals with the K12 science education framework and this topic is timely.

Weakness of manuscript

1. English is poor throughout the paper.
2. Meanings of K12, s, v, a and t are not stated.
3. Main result of this paper is not clearly stated. Suggestions for improvement
1. Throughout the paper, English should be improved by native speaker of English.
2. In the TITLE, Modelling must be replaced by Modeling.
3. It is helpful if the authors explain the meaning of K12 in ``What” section.
4. In the ``How?” section, it would be helpful if the definitions of s, v, a and t are stated.
5. Main point of this paper looks summarizing at Fig. 7. So, in my opinion, it is greatly helpful if the authors emphasize the point given in Fig. 7 in the ``Conclusion” section.
6. The authors of references are given by almost the same, that is, ``Loo Kang Wee”. References by other authors must be cited.

Recommended disposition of the manuscript: check one. (type letter x in the appropriate box)

Accept
Accept with minor revisions
Accept subject to major revisions x
Invite resubmission for a new review after major revisions
Reject
Please return the completed Form as an email attachment addressed to: editorial@sciepub.com
Date: Jan. 22, 2015
©Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)


Responses to address the review comments


Manuscript Number
1300100788
Manuscript Title
Performance Task using Video Analysis and Modelling to promote K12 eight practices of science
Journal Name
American Journal of Educational Research

General Comments

The paper deals with the effect of Tracker as a pedagogical tool in the effective learning of physics. Active learning is the timely topic in the present education and the authors clearly state its importance in the section ``Why?”. In order to overcome the weakness of the traditional lesson, a series of instructional videos are created by the authors and these videos promote the understanding of the physics. Main result sounds interesting but its explanation is a bit ambiguous. Furthermore, English of this paper has to be improved since the understanding suffers because of its poor English. So, the paper must be accepted after the

Strengths of manuscript

1. The result is meaningful, that is, students enjoy and look forward to physics lessons, and feel that physics is interesting subject after performing tasks using the Tracker.
2. The authors created instructional videos to promote the understanding of the physics.
3. The paper deals with the K12 science education framework and this topic is timely.

Done

Weakness of manuscript


1. English is poor throughout the paper.
2. Meanings of K12, s, v, a and t are not stated.
3. Main result of this paper is not clearly stated.

Done


Suggestions for improvement



1. Throughout the paper, English should be improved by native speaker of English.
2. In the TITLE, Modelling must be replaced by Modeling.

Done. Replaced in the paper


3. It is helpful if the authors explain the meaning of K12 in ``What” section.


Done. In the paper reference is made to Framework for K-12 Science Education by National Research Council, USA
The para is expanded to
We used the 2012 Framework for K-12 Science Education by National Research Council, USA1 to guide our use of the video analysis2 and Modeling3 approach to allow students to be like scientists. This conceptual framework aims to capture students' interest and provide them with the necessary foundational knowledge in the field of science and engineering. The becoming like scientist in classrooms is achieved by promoting students to 1. ask question, 2. use models, 3. plan and carry out investigation, 4. analyse and interpret data, 5. use mathematical and computational thinking, 6. construct explanations, 7. argue from evidence and 8. communicate information.




4. In the ``How?” section, it would be helpful if the definitions of s, v, a and t are stated.

Done


5. Main point of this paper looks summarizing at Fig. 7. So, in my opinion, it is greatly helpful if the authors emphasize the point given in Fig. 7 in the ``Conclusion” section.


Agreed.
A new paragraph is added




Figure 1. N=273 whole cohort of students and N =30 for high-performing and mathematically-inclined class’ pre- and post- perception survey on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), middle is 3.5 point. Note the mean and standard deviation are added for ease of interpreting the self reporting perception survey 

Our initial analysis of N=273 students’ pre- and post- perception survey on the experience of the performance task suggested that only the high-performing and mathematically-inclined class registered a strong positive change (Figure 7) in the affective domains like “I look forward to physics lessons” pre=4.12, post=4.73, “I really enjoy physics lessons” pre =4.18, post = 4.73 and “Physics is one of the most interesting school subjects” pre=3.88, post =4.67 while as a whole cohort of 273 students, there was practically no change in the self-reporting perception survey. We speculate that the no change in pre- and post- perception for the remaining cohort was due two main factors such as 1) student’s high perception of themselves like scientists during pre-survey, 2) students were “pushed” too hard to be like scientists in the 6 to 10 weeks, resulting in deliberate low post-survey scores.


In addition, we share 3 examples of actual performance task of behaving like scientists and elaborated on how to further strengthen the K-12 Science Education by National Research Council, USA of practice 2. Use models and practice 5. Use mathematical and computational thinking.


6. The authors of references are given by almost the same, that is, ``Loo Kang Wee”. References by other authors must be cited.

Reference of other authors are made
[1] Q. Helen, S. Heidi, and K. Thomas, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012.
[2] D. Brown. (2012). Tracker Free Video Analysis and Modeling Tool for Physics Education. Available: http://www.cabrillo.edu/~dbrown/tracker/
[3] L. K. Wee, "Tracker Video Analysis: Bouncing Ball," ed, 2012.
[4] L. K. Wee, C. Chew, G. H. Goh, S. Tan, and T. L. Lee, "Using Tracker as a pedagogical tool for understanding projectile motion," Physics Education, vol. 47, p. 448, 2012.
[5] W. Christian and F. Esquembre, "Computational Modeling with Open Source Physics and Easy Java Simulations," presented at the South African National Institute for Theoretical Physics Event, University of Pretoria, South Africa, 2012.
[6] L. K. Wee, "One-dimensional collision carts computer model and its design ideas for productive experiential learning," Physics Education, vol. 47, p. 301, 2012.
[7] D. Brown, "Combining computational physics with video analysis in Tracker," presented at the American Association of Physics Teachers AAPT Summer Meeting, Greensboro 2007.
[8] D. Brown, "Video Modeling: Combining Dynamic Model Simulations with Traditional Video Analysis," presented at the American Association of Physics Teachers AAPT Summer Meeting, Edmonton, 2008.
[9] D. Brown, "Video Modeling with Tracker," presented at the American Association of Physics Teachers AAPT Summer Meeting, Ann Arbor, 2009.
[10] D. Brown. (2010). Tracker Introduction to Video Modeling (AAPT 2010). Available: http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=10188&DocID=1749
[11] D. Brown and W. Christian, "Simulating What You See," in MPTL 16 and HSCI 2011, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2011.
[12] D. Brown and A. J. Cox, "Innovative Uses of Video Analysis," The Physics Teacher, vol. 47, pp. 145-150, 2009.
[13] L. K. Wee, "Open Educational Resources from Performance Task using Video Analysis and Modeling-Tracker and K12 science education framework," presented at the 8th Joint Meeting of Chinese Physicists Worldwide (OCPA8) Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 2014.
[14] D. R. Garrison, "Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model," Adult Education Quarterly, vol. 48, p. 18, Fall97 1997.
[15] B. Barron and L. Darling-Hammond. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning. Available: http://www.edutopia.org/pdfs/edutopia-teaching-for-meaningful-learning.pdf
[16] ISKME. (2008, 02 June). Open Educational Resources. Available: http://www.oercommons.org/

Agreed.