The info is declassified and shared for the benefit of all.
Therefore our research and development is on customized computer models (Wee & Mak, 2009¹⁴) using the Easy Java Simulation Authoring Toolkit (Christian & Esquembre, 2012¹; Christian, Esquembre, & Barbato, 2011²; Esquembre, 2010⁴; Hwang & Esquembre, 2003⁶) that is 1) tailored with scholarly-reviewed pedagogical features to the Singapore syllabus, 2) free and accessible to all licensed creative commons attribution, 3) based on real data. The new computer models support the enactment of scientific work that are inquiry-enabled with data to serve as evidences, which are more likely to promote enjoyment and imagination for students having ‘experienced’ gravity-physics than traditional pen and paper problem solving.
The MOE actionable research question lies in the pedagogical design ideas-principles (how to design effective simulations for learning) of computer models (Wee, 2012¹²; Wee, Chew, Goh, Tan, & Lee, 2012¹³).
The teachers have also kindly contributed their activity-inquiry based worksheets and lecture-tutorial integration notes and slides downloadable below Figure 4, for the benefit and progress of all humankind.
Thus, drawing from these two student data sources, the evidence suggests very high percentage (69% (survey) to 100% (interview)) of students self-reported having experienced enriched learning. We argue that this largely due to the 1) interactive engagement and 2) dynamic visualization (see Appendix G – Teachers’ reflections) from the Open Source Physics (OSP) customized computer models, which was further developed by the SSTRF project. We also recognise that the result is so outstanding, as we are comparing with traditional existing current pen paper teaching-learning practice.
To recap, we speculate these enriched learning and being scientists percentages can be increase when teaching-learning practices strengthen 1) students’ asking own inquiry questions, 2) teacher mentorship, 3) end-to-end (lectures notes to tutorials to computer laboratory activities) integration as witnessed in two research site-schools to be able to promote effective learning experience. (Sample transcripts arranged into the themes are available in the Appendix B,C,D,E and F)
We recommend teaching-learning practices that allow students to ask questions during the last part of the worksheet to stretch higher ability students while not demotivating lower ability ones. Through utilization of the computer models, students can relate better to physics in their daily-lives and try out their own hypothesis-testing of ‘what-if?’ scenarios.
Gravitational forces exist between any two bodies of mass. Each body of mass naturally possesses a gravitational field of influence around itself. When two bodies of mass enter into each other’s gravitational fields, they are subjected to the influence of each other’s field strength.
Newton’s universal law of gravitation states that every particle attracts every other particle with a gravitational force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation r between their centres.
Check the M1 button to display mass M1. Using the slider for M1, change the mass of M1 (blue ball) to 500 kg, as shown above.
Check the test mass m button to display the test mass m (red dot). change the test mass to 1.00 kg, as shown above.
The pink arrow acting on the test mass pointing towards M1 represents the field strength g1 of M1 acting on test mass. You may adjust the green ‘scale’ slider on the left side of the simulation to change the length of this arrow that represents g1.
Click the ▶ button and watch what happens to the test mass and the arrow acting on it.
“Left-click & hold” on the test mass (red dot) and move it around horizontally on both the left and right side of M1 (blue ball). Observe the arrow (representing the g1 by M1) acting on the test mass and the value of its field strength by M1 (g1).
Check the ‘g’ button to display the graph of M1’s gravitational field strength and the three field strength bars. These bars indicate the magnitude of the field strength (by the length of the colour bars) and the sign of the field strength (‘positive’ if the bar appears above the midpoint; ‘negative’ if the bar appears below the midpoint). “g1’ represent the field strength of M1, “g2” for M2 and “gnet” for the net field strength of both masses at that point in space occupied by test mass.
Uncheck M1 button. Check M2 button to display mass M2 and adjust its mass to 500 kg. The graph showing the variation of field strength with distance from M2 (g vs r graph) should appear.
Move the test mass around again and compare the shape of the graph with the g values.
Check the boxes of both masses M1 and M2 and the combined g to show the values and graphs of g1, g2 and gnet. Check your prediction and correct your graph if it is wrong.
Observe the two arrows (pink for g1 and blue for g2) acting on the test mass. Move the test mass around. Pay attention to how the two arrows change and compare the shape of the graph with the gnet values (net field strength by both M1 & M2).
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, 2005³). Word problem solving 'pedagogy' (Ng & Lee, 2009¹⁰) is a pedagogical mismatch (McDermott, 1993⁸) to doing science and sending students on field trips into outer-space is untenable from safety and economic standpoints. Thus, researchers have created computer simulations (Lindsey, 2012⁷; PhET, 2011¹¹) to allow multiple visualizations (Gilbert, 2010⁵; Wong, Sng, Ng, & Wee, 2011¹⁵) of difficult concepts but these are usually made for their own use.Therefore our research and development is on customized computer models (Wee & Mak, 2009¹⁴) using the Easy Java Simulation Authoring Toolkit (Christian & Esquembre, 2012¹; Christian, Esquembre, & Barbato, 2011²; Esquembre, 2010⁴; Hwang & Esquembre, 2003⁶) that is 1) tailored with scholarly-reviewed pedagogical features to the Singapore syllabus, 2) free and accessible to all licensed creative commons attribution, 3) based on real data. The new computer models support the enactment of scientific work that are inquiry-enabled with data to serve as evidences, which are more likely to promote enjoyment and imagination for students having ‘experienced’ gravity-physics than traditional pen and paper problem solving.
The MOE actionable research question lies in the pedagogical design ideas-principles (how to design effective simulations for learning) of computer models (Wee, 2012¹²; Wee, Chew, Goh, Tan, & Lee, 2012¹³).
Introduction
A. Materials
- Library of Open Source Physics Computer Models
- Easy Java Simulation 4.37 and above
- Java Runtime 6 and above
- Java 3D 1.51 and above
B. Participants
Table I: Table of School, collaborator, number of students, number of student interviewees and number of teachers
C. Design :
- Stage 0: Scan
- Literature review of sound pedagogical designs for computer model.
- Stage 1: Design
- Co-design lesson package with teachers
- Stage 2: Implementation
- Incorporate design into computer models
- More co-design Lesson package with teachers
- Focus Group Discussions with students and teachers
- Stage 3 Refine
- Improve the design based on literature review and students and teachers feedback
Method:
- Scan
- Extract useful scholarly articles/papers, simulations (java applets/flash etc) from the internet.
- Design
- Share with the teachers the initial design and features for inquiry-based learning, provided 4 lesson worksheets from YJC. Some further customization required.
- Created instructional YouTube videos to teach students/teachers how to use the simulations effectively
- Use blog post for information and updates
- Implementation
- Allow teachers to carry out lessons after discussions/inputs from students to suit school’s needs.
- Refine
- Analysed Focus Group Discussion and recorded students’ interview videos to allow teachers to learn from their first implementation.
- Use data from Google survey to further improve the simulations
- Prepare report
- Share at instructional program support group IPSG @IJC 19 January 2014.
Computer Models:
Our main research and development is on the four (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4) customization of computer models (Wee & Mak, 2009¹⁴) using the Easy Java Simulation Authoring Toolkit (Christian & Esquembre, 2012¹; Christian, Esquembre, & Barbato, 2011²; Esquembre, 2010⁴; Hwang & Esquembre, 2003⁶) that is designed with 1) literature-reviewed pedagogical features to the Singapore syllabus, 2) free and accessible to all (no password nor login required) under creative commons attribution, 3) based on real data.
Figure 1. Gravity Mass Model(Duffy & Wee, 2010a³) suitable for investigative inquiry learning through data collection, customized with syllabus learning objectives such as gravitational strength g, gravitational potential φ when one or both masses M1 and M2 are present with a test mass m. Superimpose are the mathematical representations, vector presentation of g, based on current Newtonian model of gravity.
Authors: Wee Loo Kang and Andrew Duffy
Figure 2. Earth Moon Model(Duffy & Wee, 2010b⁴) suitable for investigative inquiry learning, further customized to allow the experiencing of an Advanced Level examination question June 87 /II/8. Data are based on real values where students can play and experience.
Authors: Wee Loo Kang and Andrew Duffy
Figure 3. Geostationary Satellite around Earth Model (Wee & Esquembre, 2010¹⁴) suitable for inquiry learning through menu selection. The geostationary checkbox option, 3D visualization, customized with Singapore (red) and America (satellite) as a location position for satellite fixed about a position above the earth with 24 hours period, same rotation sense on the equator plane.
Authors: Wee Loo Kang based on the works of Paco
Figure 4. Kepler’s System Model (Timberlake & Wee, 2011¹⁰) with actual astronomical data built into the simulation, with realistic 3D visualization, (radius of planets such as Earth, rE and another planet for comparison r, and time t for determination of period of motion, T) data for inquiry learning and to situate understanding.
Figure 4. Kepler’s System Model (Timberlake & Wee, 2011¹⁰) with actual astronomical data built into the simulation, with realistic 3D visualization, (radius of planets such as Earth, rE and another planet for comparison r, and time t for determination of period of motion, T) data for inquiry learning and to situate understanding.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44365627/lookangEJSworkspace/export/ejs_KeplerSystem3rdLaw09.jar
Authors: Timberlake, Wee Loo Kang and Fu-Kwun Hwang
worksheets by (lead) YJC: https://www.dropbox.com/s/53vztw6meupn4r5/GravitationYJC.zip
scaling IJC: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44365627/eduLabJava2012-2013/Gravity/GravitationIJC2013.zip
The teachers have also kindly contributed their activity-inquiry based worksheets and lecture-tutorial integration notes and slides downloadable below Figure 4, for the benefit and progress of all humankind.
Results:
A. Enriched Learning
Figure 5. 6 point Likert scale bar Chart of Enriched Learning in its components of (a) meaning making (N=43, 74%), and (b) give energy to learn (N=33, 58%)
- Survey Project’s objectives are achieved because the project completed the research and development on computer models (ICT-enabled inquiry pedagogy) further customize with pedagogical design ideas-principles [winner of Innergy gold award (MOE, 2012⁹)] to promote (Figure 5) 1a. Enriching learning experience (N=43, 74%), 1b. energy-motivation to learn (N=33, 58%) giving an average of 69%.
- Interview Random-convenient sampling of N=38 out of 934 Students’ interviews from 5 research sites with insights shared (Figure 6) suggests 100% (TABLE II. ) interviewees reported enriched learning is achieved.
Table II: Table of School, number of teachers, number of students, number of student interviewees and whether the interviewees agree or disagree about use of the research artifacts resulted in enriched learning or becoming like scientists
Thus, drawing from these two student data sources, the evidence suggests very high percentage (69% (survey) to 100% (interview)) of students self-reported having experienced enriched learning. We argue that this largely due to the 1) interactive engagement and 2) dynamic visualization (see Appendix G – Teachers’ reflections) from the Open Source Physics (OSP) customized computer models, which was further developed by the SSTRF project. We also recognise that the result is so outstanding, as we are comparing with traditional existing current pen paper teaching-learning practice.
B. Being Scientists
Figure 7. 6 point Likert scale bar chart of behaving like ‘scientists’ in its components of a) data collection (N=43, 79%), b) reasoning skills (N=33, 64%) and c) creative thinking (N=33, 64%).
- Survey The survey yielded results on students behave like ‘scientists’ (Figure 7) through 3a. data collection and exploring possibilities and generating ideas (N=43, 79%), 3b. exercise sound reasoning and decision making (N=33, 64%), and 3c. managing complexities and ambiguities (N=33, 64%). The evidences suggests an average of 69% of the surveyed students claimed that they do behave like ‘scientists’, especially when they explore and conduct evidence-based discussions with peers and teachers to understand the physics concept.
- Interview
- Strategies to improve being like scientists 21% (survey) to 30% (interview) students surveyed also felt they were not like ‘scientists’ for the following reasons:
A random sampling of students-interviewees (N = 38 out of 934) provided some ideas that might allow learning with computer models to be more like scientists through two enhancements to the lessons as surfaced during students’ interview.
- Ask own question: current teaching practices with these computer models did not promote asking own science questions. Instead, students usually need to explore and copy down the observations (Figure 9).
- Need strong teacher mentorship: In two of the research site-schools, the teachers used the simulations and worksheets as what we classified as “unsupported e-learning”. The students during interviews-focus group discussions highlighted that they had to struggle with the effective usage of the simulations for conceptual learning. The students suggested the teachers need to provide online support during e-learning in terms of instructional YouTube video (created by PI as a response Figure 10 ), and continue to have face to face guidance when class resumes (Figure 11), as critical to support effective conceptual learning.
To recap, we speculate these enriched learning and being scientists percentages can be increase when teaching-learning practices strengthen 1) students’ asking own inquiry questions, 2) teacher mentorship, 3) end-to-end (lectures notes to tutorials to computer laboratory activities) integration as witnessed in two research site-schools to be able to promote effective learning experience. (Sample transcripts arranged into the themes are available in the Appendix B,C,D,E and F)
We recommend teaching-learning practices that allow students to ask questions during the last part of the worksheet to stretch higher ability students while not demotivating lower ability ones. Through utilization of the computer models, students can relate better to physics in their daily-lives and try out their own hypothesis-testing of ‘what-if?’ scenarios.
C. Significant
This project is significant for the following reasons:- Pedagogical design ideas-principles (how to design effective simulations for learning) of computer models are synthesized for MOE new resource development for students’ learning space (SLS) :
- Appropriate and simple visualization. Our research suggests 3D is required only for 3 dimensional physics phenomena (example Geostationary Orbits Model and Solar System Model (Figure 12 RIGHT)). 2D view (example Two Model System (Figure 13 LEFT) and Earth-Moon Model (Figure 12 LEFT)) which is simpler for learners should be used especially when lecture notes (Figure 13 RIGHT) depict it that way.
- Multiple representations. World view (Figure 14), symbolic (equations) view and scientific (graphs) view should be integrated and visible for a coherent learning experience.
- Formative conceptual testing. For example in the earth –moon model, students are to test their own velocities to ‘experience’ the theoretical calculation of escape velocity on Earth’s surface (Figure 15). In other words, the model can allow of incorrect testing or productive failures of their own curiosity thinking.
- Consistent interface design and colour association. Our research suggests to reduce cognitive overloading, the layout interface design (Figure 16) needs to be consistent thorough the family of models for shortening the time to get familiar with the models. Colours are also useful to communicate associations to variables and representations.
- Just in time help and hints. We used the mouse over technique to allow just time hints (Figure 17) for students to get an idea of what the control does.
- Ease of use. In our research, we used a dedicated drop-down menu (Figure 18) to promote inquiry instead of getting students to key in the variety of variables to achieve the appropriate simulated scenarios.
- Students now can experience enriched learning with gravity physics concepts, which cannot be experienced via non-interactive digital (video, pictures, online-text) and non-digital formats (printed paper notes).
- Universal access to quality educational resources so that anyone with internet access can download the resources and use them for educational purposes.
Figure 12. Diagrams showing the 2D (LEFT) and 3D (RIGHT) in different simulations to prevent confusion and aid students in understanding.
Figure 13. Diagrams showing the appropriate use of 2D (LEFT) and the typical representation in lecture notes (RIGHT) simulations to prevent confusion and aid students in understanding.
Figure 14. Diagrams showing the use of simulations to create multiple representations (LEFT world view = moon earth, symbolic = equations of gravitational strength g and potential φ ) of the same situation from different perspectives (RIGHT TOP, perspective from Earth, RIGHT BOTTOM, perspective from outer space).
Figure 15. Diagram showing the use of the simulation to do trial-and-error.
Figure 16. Diagram showing the bottom control panels used is in similar format used in all EJS simulations, allows students to be be more familiar with and conduct learning activities with.
Figure 17. Diagram showing a hint popping up just by hovering your mouse over an option.
Figure 18. Diagram showing a drop-box feature in the simulations for ease of use.
Discussions
A. Procedure
- The research procedure is accelerated as the team had expertise (PI’s senior specialist’s specialisation) to customize the simulations to meet the teachers’ and students’ learning needs. The research would not have been possible if it relied on an outsource-to-vendor approach of resource development as the vendors would not have the technological-pedagogical-content knowledge expertise nor the ‘passion’ to continuously refine the simulations rapidly.
B. Limitations
- The computer models currently require Java and Java 3D to render the models which may be difficult to roll-out MOE- system wide as Java even though is available on computer operating systems like Windows, MacOSX and Linux, it may face deployment issues in a security Singapore Government computer usage policies.
- The computer models also cannot be used in mobile operating system such as iOS and Android, presents a heighten barrier towards student-centric education.
- The research findings on enrich learning and being scientists is limited to 5 out of the 16 possible junior college/schools and our findings are contextualized to the teachers (N=12) and students (N=934) involved and may differ slightly from the other 11 junior colleges especially if the teachers do not design activities for students to (a) ask own questions and (b) scaffold/support the learning process explicitly.
C. Strengths
- The 5 JC’s involved in this project will likely continue to adopt and adapt the computer models developed so far, and may even ask for more of such resources. To date, another 4 JC (AJC, MJC, HCI and NJC) has adopted/adapted the simulations. Thus, a total of 9 out of the 16 JC have reported using these computer models in varying degrees of adoption and adaptation.
- Systemic Change in terms of the artefacts produced by the school teachers such as creation of computer lab worksheets (Appendix H), changes in lectures notes demonstration-student hands on (Appendix I), changes in tutorial questions (Appendix J), and suggest that this is a longer lasting change towards physics education for a more enriching and becoming like scientists next generation curriculum.
D. Future Directions
- Ride on the success of the SSTRF project and the global trend of enriched learning by providing tools for becoming ‘scientists’, through online resources, a comprehensive ‘O’ and ‘A’ physics digital library of resources can be developed in the same open source approach at practically a small fraction of the cost typically involved in vendor produced approach. We have already research and develop 100+ online computer models that are: 1) based-on mathematical and accurate models that are tailored to the Singapore syllabus, 2) free and universally accessible without password or login required, 3) collaborating with the global OSP community and a ground-up team of teachers in Singapore.
- As enriched learning and being like scientists findings, a research validated instrument called Test of Physics-Related Attitudes (TOPRA) (Appendix J) could be adapted and administered for finding out a richer perspective on students’ affective domains on learning with these computer models.
References:
- Christian, Wolfgang, & Esquembre, Francisco. (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.
- Christian, Wolfgang, Esquembre, Francisco, & Barbato, Lyle. (2011). Open Source Physics. Science, 334(6059), 1077-1078. doi: 10.1126/science.1196984
- Eick, C., Meadows, L., & Balkcom, R. (2005). Breaking into Inquiry: Scaffolding Supports Beginning Efforts to Implement Inquiry in the Classroom. Science Teacher, 72(7), 49-53.
- Esquembre, Francisco. (2010). Easy Java Simulations. Retrieved 20 October, 2010, from http://www.um.es/fem/Ejs/Ejs_en/index.html
- Gilbert, John 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).
- Hwang, F. K., & Esquembre, F. (2003). Easy java simulations: An interactive science learning tool. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer - Enhanced Learning, 5.
- Lindsey, Clark 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
- McDermott, Lillian C. (1993). Guest Comment: How we teach and how students learn---A mismatch? American Journal of Physics, 61(4), 295-298.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- Wee, Loo Kang. (2012). One-dimensional collision carts computer model and its design ideas for productive experiential learning. Physics Education, 47(3), 301.
- Wee, Loo Kang, Chew, Charles, Goh, Giam Hwee, Tan, Samuel, & Lee, Tat Leong. (2012). Using Tracker as a pedagogical tool for understanding projectile motion. Physics Education, 47(4), 448.
- Wee, Loo Kang, & Mak, Wai Keong. (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.
- Wong, Darren, Sng, Peng Poo, Ng, Eng Hock, & Wee, Loo Kang. (2011). Learning with multiple representations: an example of a revision lesson in mechanics. Physics Education, 46(2), 178.
Appendices
A. Perception Survey Data
Table III: Table of 6-point likert scale survey data about the enrich learning in 2a meaning making, 2b giving energy to learn becoming like scientists in, 3a data collection, 3b analysis, 3c creativity and critical thinking
B. Transcript on 2a Enriched learning – meaning making
School/student
|
Interview transcript
|
| YJC S1: | “I managed to see how the things are really like in 3D...it's like you're experiencing the thing...it's more clear than the 2D 'image' on the paper...” ( Voice 008 00:30) (YouTube link) |
| YJC S2: | “I enjoyed all the simulations...it's easier for us to understand the topics...” (Voice 008 01:01) (YouTube link) |
| YJC S1: | “...it's better than seeing drawings...on the board...” (Voice 008 01:12) (YouTube link) |
| YJC S2&3: | “...when the teacher tell us that the satellite moves from West to East...we only know East from West to East 'but' we don't really know how it actually goes...but when we actually saw it, we understand better.Very hard to picture 'from words'...” (Voice 008 06:30) (YouTube link) |
| YJC S5: | “...'the Geostationary Object simulation' is clear because you can 'see the' position of the satellite and 'its' other positions that cannot be tried out in tutorials...or...lectures.” (Voice 009 04:20) (YouTube link) |
| YJC S4: |
“During lectures, teachers will deliver the lecture, but most of the time, they just get you to copy things down...at least for me, I don't quite understand and you'll have to get home and start reading them again. So maybe to just understand one concept, it's going to take a bit of time because you have to go for lectures and then go home to read it and study tutorials. But with 'the simulation', you get to learn instantly...as you explore different options, your brain will capture the movements...and it sort of register in your head instantly compared to reading the lecture notes again just to visualize what the tutor is trying to convey....and I think it does shorten the amount of time trying to comprehend a new concept.” (Voice 009 15:12) (YouTube link)
|
| YJC S6: | “I like the visualization...through the simulation, I know of many other scenarios...so overall, I find it quite good. 'Furthermore' there's 3D view 'which enables' you to imagine it...if printed in the paper, it will be quite dead...” (Voice 010 00:19) (YouTube link) |
C. Transcript on 2b Enriched learning – energy to learn
School/student
|
Interview transcript
|
YJC S3:
| “...the lecture notes are all in words...I can understand lecture notes, but when I try out these simulations, they actually make me think of the concept again...then I realize the concept that I learnt in lecture notes don't really make sense...then I need to approach the teacher to clear it out...this really question what I have learnt so far to see if I have really understand the concept or not...” (Voice 008 14:23) (YouTube link) |
YJC S4:
| “...compare to those lessons in the lectures and tutorials, you can't really do 'much hands-on activities' and get instant results and calculations and you can't see the graph instantly” (Voice 009 01:26) (YouTube link) |
YJC S5:
| “...the ability to change the data...creates an impression in me 'which' I think it did helps...unlike the dry lectures that was delivered by the tutors...” (Voice 009 08:30) (YouTube link) |
YJC S7:
| “Last year, teacher can only touch on the topics quite generally...they'll only emphasize on those you don't know...but if you got this software, you can try to understand yourself...you go and do it yourself first, if you don't know then you ask the teacher...I think it clarifies better and you get to understand the concept better.” (Voice 010 03:12) (YouTube link) |
D. Transcript on 3a. Behaving like scientists- Explore possibilities and generate ideas
School/student
|
Interview transcript
|
YJC S2:
| “...'the simulation' helps 'to collect data'...because it gives very clear values...” (Voice 008 15:17) (YouTube link) |
YJC S1:
| “It gives very specific points on the graph to show...at each point, what the value was...” (Voice 008 15:42) (YouTube link) |
YJC S2:
| “...we get to try and put in our own values... so 'it helps us to' understand better.” (Voice 008 17:12) (YouTube link) |
YJC S6:
| “It does not consume too much time 'to collect data', you just shift the things...it 'also' helps you to see the possibilities of different scenarios, different questions...'this' helps you to broaden your perspective of 'the' different kind of questions that can come out...so at least you see before doing them...” (Voice 010 05:05) (YouTube link) |
YJC S7:
| “...'the most significant moment when I felt like a scientist is' when we try out the Geostationary 'model'...'we' can try the different possibilities 'of the position of the satellite'...” (Voice 010 08:00) (YouTube link) |
E. Transcript on Behaving like scientists- Exercising sound reasoning and decision making
School/student
|
Interview transcript
|
YJC S1:
| “It actually makes us think...” (Voice 008 16:02) (YouTube link) |
YJC S1:
| “...'because' to answer the questions 'on the worksheet', you need to look carefully at graphs...'and' explain what we see.” (Voice 008 16:11) (YouTube link) |
YJC S5:
| “...we get to explore different options...get to subtly see a difference and 'make' the comparison between them.” (Voice 009 06:37) (YouTube link) |
YJC S5:
| “'Before going through the simulation,' I thought that 'all the planets' move in a flat surface...but in the end, they all have different planes...so that's like discovering something new...something that makes me feel...hey maybe I am a scientist!” (Voice 009 20:24) (YouTube link) |
YJC S7:
| “After we collect the data, we have to look at what we write...then we do the analysis...” (Voice 010 05:37) (YouTube link) |
F. Transcript on behaving like scientists- Manage complexities and ambiguities
School/student
|
Interview transcript
|
YJC S6:
| “...you're trying something that is unexpected...'that' we never try before...”(Voice 010 08:18) (YouTube link) |
G. Summary of teachers’ reflections
School
|
IJC
|
YJC
|
RVHS
|
ACJC
|
NJC
|
Settings
|
All 260 JC1 students did it in lectures and June 2013 holiday enrichment assignments.
|
All 280 JC1 H2 Physics cohort did it in lectures with total 6 teachers (PD provided by lecturer) with support for student’s discussions.
|
25 students SH5 did as worksheets-labs during lesson.
|
120 students Control = 60/experimental =60 research approach of same 3 teachers teaching both groups
|
249 students in e-learning week to compliment school’s existing CCA & outreach program
|
Strengths of SSTRF gravity Simulations
|
1. Enhanced visuals - Seeing how a body moves or behaves when variables are varied (eg Kepler’s law)
2. Interactive nature
3. Inquiry Enabled - Able to manipulate the values and making prediction of outcome.
|
1. Enhanced visuals Helped students better visualise the 2D and 3D motions of masses, planets and satellites under the influence of gravitational fields.
|
1. Enhanced visuals - Better than static pictures in notes.
2. Interactive engagement Better than static pictures in notes.
|
1. Enhanced visuals - Help students to visualise the abstract concepts
|
1. Enhanced visuals - It is particularly useful for the weaker students as they can now visualise the path of the objects in a gravitational field.
|
Evidences (Enriched )
| |||||
Evidences (scientists)
| |||||
Evidences (Others)
| |||||
Strengths of SSTRF gravity lessons
|
Can better engage students in the learning.
| ||||
Weakness of SSTRF gravity simulations
|
More Time: Need time to be familiar with navigation.
Prior Knowledge: It will make sense to students only if the students understood the theory well.
Teacher Mentor: Need for proper introduction to topics before showing the simulation.
|
More Time: The buttons and sliders at the bottom of the screen are not too user-friendly, with little or no description.
|
Not Pretty: Poor graphics and cannot run on mobile devices.
|
More Time: Need to spend time to orientate the simulations to students.
|
Teacher Mentor: Students have feedback that there need to be a teacher available to help orientate them with the applets. More Time: spent on that particular topic.
|
Weakness of SSTRF gravity lessons
|
More Time: Little time for self-explorations.
Prior Knowledge: Teaching the theory behind the concept is still a challenge. Appreciation for EJS will increase if they understood concept.
|
More Time: Not easy to learn how to manipulate EJS over a short period of time and as a result, many students did not have the discipline/ motivation to try out EJS on their own, due to many other commitments.
|
Teacher Mentor: Due to the need to be orientated, the lessons were quite wordy. The videos made to aid in orientating the students can help to make it less wordy.
| ||
Other Comments
|
More Models:
Good to design a comprehensive package with theory and EJS to make the experience meaningful and insightful.
|
Teacher Mentor: Need to design differentiated worksheets for different learner groups, as some students need more guidance in manipulating the EJS while some want more creative and difficult tasks to challenge them.
|
Open source: allow Tat Leong to future customize to suit his needs.
|
Full Integration:
To fully maximize the usefulness of the simulations, it is important to incorporate the exercise into the lesson plans.
|
Table IV. Table teacher reflection about the strength and weaknesses of the simulations and lessons and links to interview of evidences of enriched learning and becoming like scientists
H. Creations of new computer lab worksheets
Sample Artefacts of worksheets before this research no such worksheets and after research, worksheets provided means for experimentation and active learning.
Learning Physics by Inquiry ICT Worksheet 1
Gravitational Field Strength (g) and Gravitational Potential (φ)
| ||
Name:
|
…………………………………………………
| CTG: ………………… |
Aims: (1) To understand the fundamental concepts of gravitational field strength (g), gravitational potential (φ) and how they vary with distance from mass(es);
(2) To understand the relationship between gnet and φnet.
Apparatus: Computer installed with Java runtime and the EJS java applet, titled “Gravitational field strength & potential Model”, which can be downloaded from
Gravitational forces exist between any two bodies of mass. Each body of mass naturally possesses a gravitational field of influence around itself. When two bodies of mass enter into each other’s gravitational fields, they are subjected to the influence of each other’s field strength.
Newton’s universal law of gravitation states that every particle attracts every other particle with a gravitational force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation r between their centres.
Q1 Open the above-mentioned Easy-Java-Simulation (EJS) Open Source file. (Take note that for this simulation, when a value shows 1.23 E -8, it means 1.23 ×10-8)
Navigating the Easy Java Simulation (EJS)
- GRAVITATIONAL FIELD STRENGTH DUE TO A SINGLE SOURCE MASS M1
The gravitational field strength (g) at a point due the gravitational field (set up by a mass M) is the gravitational force per unit mass acting on a point mass placed at that point.
Check the test mass m button to display the test mass m (red dot). change the test mass to 1.00 kg, as shown above.
Observation
Place the test mass 2.0 m to the left of M1.
|
Place the test mass 2.0 m to the right of M1.
|
The pink arrow is pointing to (left / right)
Thus, g has (positive / negative) value.
|
The pink arrow is pointing to (left / right)
Thus, g has (positive/negative) value.
|
After pressing the play button, the test mass moves with (increasing / decreasing) speed to the (left / right).
|
After pressing the play button, the test mass moves with (increasing/decreasing) speed to the (left / right).
|
Learning Points
Q2 Does g1 have a constant magnitude? If not, describe what happens to the magnitude when the test mass approaches M1.
Q3 Does g1 have a constant direction? Give a reason for your answer. 
Q4 Hence, state whether the gravitational field strength, g, is a vector or scalar quantity. 
- GRAVITATIONAL FIELD STRENGTHS DUE TO TWO SOURCE MASSES M1 AND M2.
Move the test mass around and compare the shape of the graph with the g values.
Q5 Sketch the individual g vs r graphs for M1 & M2 separately in graph 1 below. Use different colour pens to draw each graph.
Q6 Now predict how the net g vs r graph will look like if the two masses M1 & M2 appear simultaneously, side by side 4 m apart, in graph 2.
Check the boxes of both masses M1 and M2 and the combined g to show the values and graphs of g1, g2 and gnet. Check your prediction and correct your graph if it is wrong.
Observe the two arrows (pink for g1 and blue for g2) acting on the test mass. Move the test mass around. Pay attention to how the two arrows change and compare the shape of the graph with the gnet values (net field strength by both M1 & M2).
Q7 Find the point in space where the two arrows point in opposite direction and have equal length. This is called the neutral point.
What is the gnet value at that point? Give a reason for your answer
Mark the neutral point N in graph 2. Predict what would happen to the test mass when you click the 
button.
button.
Q8 Predict what would happen to the neutral point in the net g vs r graph if the mass M2 is reduced to 100 kg. Sketch your predicted graph in graph 3 and mark the new neutral point N’.
Q9 Calculate the distance from M1 to the new neutral point N’. (Hint: gnet = 0)
Distance (based on calculation) = 2.76 m
Q10 Adjust the mass of M2 to 100 kg and check your prediction. Correct your graph if it is wrong. Move the test mass to the new neutral point and record the distance r_M1m from the simulation. The distances from your calculation and the simulation should be the same!
Distance (based on simulation) = 2.76 m
- GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL DUE TO A SINGLE SOURCE MASS M1.
Now we will look at another characteristic of gravitational field.
The gravitational potential (φ ) at a point due the gravitational field (set up by a mass M) is the work done per unit mass by an external agent in bringing the mass from infinity to that point.
- Uncheck the ‘g’ and M2 buttons. Ensure that the mass of M1 is 500 kg.
- Check the φ (potential) button to display the graph showing the variation of potential with distance from mass M1 (φ vs r graph).
- “Left-click & hold” on the test mass (red dot) and move it around horizontally again on the left and right side of mass M1. This time, observe the potential, φ value of the test mass by M1 (φ1) displayed on the potential bars on the right of the screen.
Q12 What happens to the φ1 value when the test mass is placed further away from mass M1. 
Q13 What do you think would the value of φ1 be if the test mass approaches infinity? 
Q14 Hence explain why the sign of gravitational potential is always negative. 
- GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL DUE TO A TWO SOURCE MASS M1 AND M2
- Uncheck M1 button. Check M2 button to display mass M2 and ensure its mass is 500 kg. The graph showing the variation of potential with distance from M2 (φ vs r graph) should apear.
- Move the test mass around again and compare the shape of the graph with the φ values.
Q15 Sketch the individual φ vs r graphs for M1 & M2 separately in graph 4 below. Use different colour pens to draw each graph.
Q16 Now predict how the net φ vs r graph will look like if the two masses M1 & M2 appear simultaneously, side by side 4 m apart, in graph 5.
- Check the boxes of both masses M1 and M2 and the combined φ to show the values and graphs of φ1, φ2 and φnet. Check your prediction and correct your graph if it is wrong.
- UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GRAVITATIONAL FIELD STRENTH (g) AND POTENTIAL (φ)
Q17 Check the dφ/dr button to display the tangent of the φ vs r graph and the value of dφ/dr. Also check the g vs r graph and strength bars. Move the test mass into the various positions listed below relative to origin (r = 0) and record the corresponding dφ/dr and gnet values in the table.
Position of test mass relative to the origin
|
dφ/dr
|
gnet
|
-1.0
|
2.97 x 10-8
|
- 2.97 x 10-8
|
-0.5
|
0.95 x 10-8
|
-0.95 x 10-8
|
0.0
|
0.00 x 10-8
|
0.00 x 10-8
|
0.5
|
- 0.95 x 10-8
|
0.95 x 10-8
|
1.0
|
- 2.97 x 10-8
|
2.97 x 10-8
|
Describe the relationship between the numerical values of dφ/dr and gnet.
What do you notice about the signs of dφ/dr and gnet?
Hence what does this imply about the relationship between φ vs r graph and g vs r graph?
Observe the simulation more carefully and deduce whether the net g field is pointing in the direction of increasing φ potential or decreasing φ potential.
J. Change in Lecture notes, sample artefacts of PowerPoint slides that after research, lecturer demonstrates the effective use of computer models for active experimentation and learning.
K. Change in Tutorial Questions:
Tutorial Questions were abstract and mainly mathematical treatment of escape velocity. After research, questions provided means for experimentation and active learning
8☺☺☺ (a) With reference to the answers in Q6, calculate the minimum required speed for a body to escape from the surface of Earth to the surface of Moon. Give your answer
in 5 s.f. Take the radius of the Earth to be 6371 km and mass of the Earth to be 5.97×1024 kg. [1.1076 x 104 m s-1]
Soln: To determine the escape speed, v, from Earth to Moon:
Assuming negligible atmospheric friction,
Minimum KE from projection ≥ Change in GPE for body to reach neutral point X
i.e. ½mv2 ≥ [(– GMEm/R – (– GMEm/RE)]
∴ ½mv2 ≥ GMEm/RE – GMEm/R
v2 ≥ 2GME (1/RE – 1/R)
Minimum projection speed = 1.1076 x 104 m s-1
(b) Carry out the following ICT inquiry exercise to check whether your answers in Q7 and Q8a can help the body to escape.
Apparatus: Computer installed with Java runtime and the EJS java applet, titled “Net gravitational field strength & potential by Earth & Moon Model”, which can be downloaded from
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/44365627/lookangEJSworkspace/export/ejs_GFieldandPotential1Dv7EarthMoon.jar
Carry out the following steps to check your answers in Q7 and Q8a.
- Open the Easy-java-simulation (Ejs) Open Source file titled “Net gravitational field strength and potential by Earth & Moon Model”. This model allows you to visualise and investigate the net gravitational field strength and potential experienced by a test mass (m) under the influence of the gravitational fields of Moon (M1) and Earth (M2).
- The EJS is equipped with real data so as to provide for a more realistic problem solving.
- At the bottom left hand corner, select the “Earth Surface view Earth Moon” so that the Earth is on the left and the Moon on the right, and the test mass is placed on the Earth surface.
To check Q7: Escape speed from Earth to infinity = ________________ m s-1
- Uncheck M2 button to hide Moon. Ensure that M1 and m buttons are checked to display the Earth and test mass. Do not adjust the values for the masses as the mass of M1 is the actual mass of Earth (5.97 x 1024 kg) and the test mass(red dot) should be kept at 1.00 kg.
- Key in the escape speed value to
and press enter.
- Click
to launch the test mass with the escape speed and observe whether the test mass ever get pulled back to Earth.
Describe what happens to the arrow’s length and the speed of the object after it has been launched.
To check Q8a: Escape speed from Earth to Moon = ________________ m s-1
- Check M2 button to display Moon. Ensure that M1 and m buttons are still checked. Do not adjust the values for the mass as the mass of M2 is the actual mass of Moon (7.35 x 1022 kg).
- Key in the escape speed value to
- Click
Explain why we only need to launch the test mass with sufficient kinetic energy to reach the neutral point, instead of reaching the Moon’s surface.
L. Test of physics-related attitudes (TOPRA)
For each of the following statements below, kindly shade on the optical answer sheet one of the following numbers indicating your response based on your feeling about the statement. There are no correct answers:
1 = Strongly Disagree or SD
2 = Disagree or D
3 = Agree or A
4 = Strongly Agree or SA.
#
|
Statement
|
SD
|
D
|
A
|
SA
|
1
|
I enjoy physics.
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
2
|
Physics is one of my most interesting subjects.
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
3
|
I look forward to physics lessons.
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
Studying physics is a waste of time.
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
The work is hard in physics lessons.
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
6
|
I feel confused during physics lessons.
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
7
|
The thought of physics makes me tense.
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
Reference:Fraser, B.J. (1981). Test of attitudes of science-related attitudes. Australian Council for Educational Research, Hawthorn, Australia.
No comments:
Post a Comment