2013-2014 Principal investigator: SSTRF ETD Application Form 2012 - 1. Gravity-Physics by Inquiry

### Principal Investigators

1. Lawrence_Wee ETD
2. Charles_Chew AST
3. yap_kian_wee Anglo-Chinese JC
4. khoo_bee_chan National JC
5. lee_tat_leong River Valley High
6. ng_soo_kok Innova JC
7. goh_giam_hwee Yishun JC

### Project Information

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 pedagogical design ideas-principles of computer models (Wee, 2012; Wee, Chew, Goh, Tan, & Lee, 2012).

### Research Initial Proposal

Research Proposal on Gravity Physics by Inquiry

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 InstrumentsTarget Level and Type of Students:Junior College Special/ExpressObjectives 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 2014Case Support
Title: Gravity-Physics by Inquiry Proposed Start Date and Completion Date: 01 Jan 2013 – 31 Dec 2013
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
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

Comparative Advantage of Design: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 byScience Fair Projects World fromhttp://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 Uranisofthttp://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.
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, fromhttp://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 fromhttp://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, fromhttp://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, fromhttp://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, fromhttp://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, fromhttp://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 fromhttp://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. fromhttp://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. fromhttp://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.

### Project Artifacts

1. author: timberlake and lookang prototype: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44365627/lookangEJSworkspace/export/ejs_KeplerSystem3rdLaw09.jar, avaliable here http://iwant2study.org/ospsg/index.php/interactive-resources/physics/02-newtonian-mechanics/08-gravity/241-gravity09
2. author: lookang and andrew based on andrew duffy early mode lhttps://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44365627/lookangEJSworkspace/export/ejs_model_GField_and_Potential_1D_v8wee.jar replaced by JavaScript version http://iwant2study.org/ospsg/index.php/interactive-resources/physics/02-newtonian-mechanics/08-gravity/57-gravity05
3. author: lookang and andrew based on andrew duffy early model https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44365627/lookangEJSworkspace/export/ejs_model_GFieldandPotential1Dv7EarthMoon.jar replaced by JavaScript version http://iwant2study.org/ospsg/index.php/interactive-resources/physics/02-newtonian-mechanics/08-gravity/63-gravity11
4. author: lookang based on the works of paco https://dl.dropbox.com/u/44365627/lookangEJSworkspace/export/ejs_EarthAndSatelite.jar replaced by JavaScript version http://iwant2study.org/ospsg/index.php/interactive-resources/physics/02-newtonian-mechanics/08-gravity/62-gravity10

2. scaling IJC: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44365627/eduLabJava2012-2013/Gravity/GravitationIJC2013.zip

### Video

Enriched Learning Playlist  through open source physics ?

Behave like a Scientist Playlist through open source physics ?

Why Should singapore Schools use open source physics by IJC students mp4 version

student interviews for OSP Playlist

### Research Interview Questions

Warm up Q: Describe briefly how does these computer simulations lessons differ from your previous “gravity” lessons? Briefly describe one part which you enjoy the most and one part which you enjoy the least.

RQ1: You should have played with games or simulations related to education. Compared to those games and simulations, describe what you like about the design of the

1.1 geostationary simulation

1.2 solar system simulation

1.3 Two mass gravity and potential simulation

1.4 earth-moon escape velocity simulation

RQ2: What features (if any) that you think help you to visualize and understand physics better than lecture notes, books, or other simulations that you have tried?

2.1 geostationary simulation

2.2 solar system simulation

2.3 Two mass gravity and potential simulation

2.4 earth-moon escape velocity simulation

RQ3: What other areas for improvement would you suggest for these simulations?

3.1 geostationary simulation

3.2 solar system simulation

3.3 Two mass gravity and potential simulation

3.4 earth-moon escape velocity simulation

RQ4: Did the FOUR simulations allow you to experience ‘rich’ learning? Briefly describe how you consider learning with these simulations to have enriched your learning.

1. Collect data ((Explores possibilities and generates ideas)

2.  Analyse data ((Exercises sound reasoning and decision making)

3. Creative and critical thinking (Manages complexities and ambiguities), like a scientist?

If so, describe the most significant moment during the lessons where you felt like a scientist in using the simulations.

### Workshops TRASI course code 70388 Gravity – Physics by Inquiry

TRASI course code 70388 Gravity – Physics by Inquiry

update 07 feb email deleted

i have 2 dates for this TRASI workshop!

Instructors:
1. Wee Loo Kang
2. Lye Sze Yee
Facilitator: YU Yoong Kheong
Venue: eduLab@AST 2 Malan Road Level 4 eduLab Room
Date: 23 Oct 2012
Time: 1500-1730 pm
Workshop: Comprises both discussion and activities
Subject Area: Physics
Grade Level: PSLE, O and A level
Technology Featured: Java
Audience Type: All
Participants teaching at the ‘A’ level physics are preferred though not required

 updated: TRASI course code 70388 Gravity – Physics by Inquiry  https://traisi.moe.gov.sg/Utility/UT_Default.asp
 TRASI course code 70388 Gravity – Physics by Inquiry  https://traisi.moe.gov.sg/Utility/UT_Default.asp

 (70388) Course Description Org Agency Duration Classes Available (Please Click on a Date) Max Class Size Course/ Class Fee Comments Objective:By the end of the session, participants should be able to: (1) aware of the features and possible usage of the 4 computer models (2) able to design worksheets with 5E instructional strategy on one of the models.Preferred Participants:Physics TeachersOther Requisites:Nil Media Dsgn & Tech For Learning,ETD,MOE 2.5 Hr(s) 3030 $$0.00$$0.00 undefined

eduLab@AST Programmes Working Group Programme Proposal

Gravity – Physics by Inquiry

The Open Source Physics community using Easy Java Simulation (Esquembre, 2004) has created hundreds of computer models (simulations) that could be finer customized (Wee & Mak, 2009) to the Singapore syllabus for more targeted productive activities.

We will share the 4 computer models’ features for guided inquiry learning and existing worksheets designed by teachers in school.

Teachers in groups will also design their own worksheets using the 5E instructional strategy that they can use in their classroom.

Participants interested in using the free authoring toolkit called “Easy Java Simulation” can register for Physics Easy Java Simulation (Part 1 & 2) TRASI Code: 70391 instead.

Our work include:

eduLab project: NRF2011-EDU001-EL001 Java Simulation Design for Teaching and Learning
2012 MOE Innergy (HQ) GOLD Award “Gravity-Physics by Inquiry”.

Objectives:

By the end of the session, participants should be able to:
(1) aware of the features and possible usage of the 4 computer models
(2) able to design worksheets with 5E instructional strategy on one of the models.

OutLine:

15 min: Introduction of Easy Java Simualtion (EJS) toolkit and the Digital Libraries.
Libraries:
1. http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/ hundreds of EJS simulations, JDK applet etc.
2. http://www.compadre.org/osp/search/browse.cfm?browse=gsss hundreds of EJS simulations
3. http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?board=28.0 my own library require login to download jar files, public can view and use using browser.
4. https://sites.google.com/site/lookang/ eduLab simulations open access.
1. https://sites.google.com/a/moe.edu.sg/physicsalevel/gravitational-field currently require login google moe.edu.sg, i am trying to build a lesson package on gravity-physics with all icon users.
1. worksheet are 2012 version from YJC

30 min: Sharing in depth of 4 gravity-physics computer models (computer models provided, writeup of innergy award worksheets for inquiry etc)
1. computer models
 Geostationary orbit model (Wee, 2012a; Wee & Esquembre, 2010) derived from Francisco’s original work (Esquembre, 2010a)

 Two mass model (Wee, Duffy, & Hwang, 2012a) derived from Andrew’s original work (Duffy, 2009) showing a 2 mass system with gravitational and potential lines in 1 dimension

 Earth-Moon model (Wee, Duffy, & Hwang, 2012b) derived from Andrew’s original work (Duffy, 2009) showing a 1 dimensional realistic model of the moon and earth system useful for exploring escape velocity concept.
 Figure 8.Kepler’s 3rd Law system model (Timberlake & Wee, 2011) derived from Todd’s original work (Timberlake, 2010) showing earth and mars and their orbital trails for data collection of periods of planets.

15 min: Study the existing worksheets designed by school teachers

30 min: in Groups, design an worksheet with the 5E instructional strategy on one of the 4 models
15 min: Break
30 min: Participants sharing their ideas on the worksheets designed using 5E instructional strategy
15 min: Upload to NTNU Java Virtual Lab the worksheets in progress and Closing discussions by particpants with presenters
NTNU:

Relevant pedagogical and theoretical underpinning(s)

Theory:
Experiential learning (Dewey, 1958; Kolb, 1984) with computer model (Wolfgang Christian, Esquembre, & Barbato, 2011; Wee, 2012b)

Literature include:
Open Source Physics OSP research:(M. Belloni, Christian, & Brown, 2007; Mario Belloni, Christian, & Mason, 2009; Brown & Christian, 2011; W. Christian, Belloni, & Brown, 2006; Wolfgang Christian, et al., 2011; Wolfgang Christian & Tobochnik, 2010; Esquembre, 2004; Hwang & Esquembre, 2003; Wee, 2010, 2012a; Wee, Esquembre, & Lye, 2012; Wee & Mak, 2009)

Physics Education Technology PhET research:(W. K. Adams, 2010; Wendy K. Adams, Paulson, & Wieman, 2008; Finkelstein et al., 2005; /Documents%20and%20Settings/Temp/Desktop/Forms_eduLab@AST%20Educatorswee2.docx#_ENREF_17" style="color: rgb(124, 147, 161); font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 18.48px;">K. Perkins et al., 2006; K. K. Perkins, Loeblein, & Dessau, 2010; PhET, 2011; Weiman & Perkins, 2005; C. E. Wieman, Adams, Loeblein, & Perkins, 2010; Carl E. Wieman, Adams, & Perkins, 2008; Carl E. Wieman, Perkins, & Adams, 2008)

Strategy include :
Physics by Inquiry (McDermott, Shaffer, & Rosenquist, 1995; MOE, 2012; Wee, Lee, & Goh, 2011)
Modeling Instruction (Jackson, Dukerich, & Hestenes, 2008)

Student outcome:

In my paper (Wee, 2012b, p. 306), evidence on student learning outcomes include:

Active learning can be Fun
“…[It] is an eye opener...[we] don’t usually get to learn with virtual learning environment…and it makes learning fun and interesting”.

“The lesson was fun and makes us think instead of just listen[ing] to teacher and remember[ing] whatever the teacher said”.

“It makes learning much more interesting and fun. It makes us want to learn and find out more about the topic”.

Need experience to understand

“…it [this lab] lets me figure out the concepts rather than just listen[ing] and believing what is taught without understanding”.

“Normally people would have to experience any physics concepts themselves through hands[-]on to really remember concepts. Lectures on the other hand may not be effective since maybe what the lecturer is bringing through us is unclear, and thus practical lessons to learn concepts is a great learning deal”.

Simulation can support inquiry learning and thinking like real scientist

“These kinds of lesson force us to think critically. It makes us look at the results, analyze and then find the trend within, which is a really good way to learn independently. It also gives us confidence and a sense of accomplishment when the conclusions we arrive at are correct.”

“Such vlab[virtual lab] lesson effectively utilizes the IT[information technology] resources to enhance lessons, making physics lessons less dry. Besides, by identifying trends in values first hand, I can remember it easier rather than via lecture notes and slides”

Need for strong inquiry learning activities

“The activity worksheet did not generate much thinking and concept understanding, just simply presents a set of values to copy to get the answers”.

“It [virtual lab] helps hasten the process of learning but the exchange of data [in the worksheet activities] is troublesome”.

Need for testing and well designed simulation (N. D. Finkelstein, et al., 2005)

Some students suggest visual and audio enhancements like “better quality so that the simulations could be more interesting and appealing” and “add sound effects”.

A good suggestion surface is to make the “program[simulation] designed as a game , thereby making it more interactive. At the end a table can be provided and it would provide us[students] with the values. From there, we do analysis”.

This suggestion has inspired us to design ‘C Game for concept testing’ in earlier part III.

Appreciative learners

“I[student] really thank you for spending time coming up with this program[simulation]. You are really an educator who cares and dares to try new things. Thanks! Hope you can come up with even better programs so that they can empower students in physics subject.”

“Thank you teachers for spending time to develop this app[lication] :)”

Intended benefit(s) to teachers
Allow teachers to design productive experiential activities around the investigative data collection on one of the 4 computer models.

Instructors
1. Wee Loo Kang
2. Lye Sze Yee
Venue: eduLab@AST 2 Malan Road Level 4 eduLab Room
Date: 23 Oct 2012
Time: 1500-1730 pm
Workshop: Comprises both discussion and activities

Subject Area: Physics

Grade Level: PSLE, O and A level

Technology Featured: Java
Audience Type: All

Participants teaching at the ‘A’ level physics are preferred though not required

My research papers:
http://arxiv.org/a/wee_l_1
My CV:

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. Belloni, M., Christian, W., & Brown, D. (2007). Open Source Physics Curricular Material for Quantum Mechanics. Computing In Science And Engineering, 9(4), 24-31.
4. 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.
5. Brown, D., & Christian, W. (2011, Sept 15-17). Simulating What You See. Paper presented at the MPTL 16 and HSCI 2011, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
6. Christian, W., Belloni, M., & Brown, D. (2006). An Open-Source XML Framework for Authoring Curricular Material. Computing In Science And Engineering, 8(5), 51-58.
7. Christian, W., Esquembre, F., & Barbato, L. (2011). Open Source Physics. Science, 334(6059), 1077-1078. doi: 10.1126/science.1196984
8. Christian, W., & Tobochnik, J. (2010). Augmenting AJP articles with computer simulations. American Journal of Physics, 78(9), 885-886.
9. Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature: Dover Pubns.
10. Esquembre, F. (2004). Easy Java Simulations: A software tool to create scientific simulations in Java. Computer Physics Communications, 156(2), 199-204.
11. 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.
12. Hwang, F. K., & Esquembre, F. (2003). Easy java simulations: An interactive science learning tool. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer - Enhanced Learning, 5.
13. Jackson, J., Dukerich, L., & Hestenes, D. (2008). Modeling Instruction: An Effective Model for Science Education. [Article]. Science Educator, 17(1), 10-17.
14. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development: Prentice Hall.
15. McDermott, L., Shaffer, P., & Rosenquist, M. (1995). Physics by inquiry: John Wiley & Sons New York.
16. 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
17. 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
18. Perkins, K. K., Loeblein, P. J., & Dessau, K. L. (2010). Sims For Science. [Article]. Science Teacher, 77(7), 46-51.
19. PhET. (2011). The Physics Education Technology (PhET) project at the University of Colorado at Boulder, USA fromhttp://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations/category/physics
20. Wee, L. K. (2010, July 17-21). AAPT 2010 Conference Presentation:Physics Educators as Designers of Simulations. Paper presented at the 2012 AAPT Summer Meeting, Portland Oregon USA.
21. Wee, L. K. (2012a, Feb 4-8). AAPT 2012 Conference Presentation:Physics Educators as Designers of Simulations. Paper presented at the 2012 AAPT Winter Meeting, Ontario CA USA.
22. Wee, L. K. (2012b). One-dimensional collision carts computer model and its design ideas for productive experiential learning. Physics Education, 47(3), 301.
23. Wee, L. K., Esquembre, F., & Lye, S. Y. (2012). Ejs open source java applet 1D collision carts with realistic collision fromhttp://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=2408.0
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Weiman, C., & Perkins, K. (2005). Transforming Physics Education. Physics Today, 58(11), 36-40.
27. Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., Loeblein, P., & Perkins, K. K. (2010). Teaching Physics Using PhET Simulations. Physics Teacher, 48(4), 225-227.
28. Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PhET: Simulations That Enhance Learning. [Article]. Science, 322(5902), 682-683.
29. Wieman, C. E., Perkins, K. K., & Adams, W. K. (2008). Oersted Medal Lecture 2007: Interactive simulations for teaching physics: What works, what doesn't, and why. American Journal of Physics, 76(4), 393-399. doi: 10.1119/1.2815365

Participants
update 07 feb email deleted

photo gallery taken by yoong kheong. Thanks bro!

### Journal Papers

1. Wee, L. K., & Goh, G. H. (2013). A geostationary Earth orbit satellite model using Easy Java Simulation. Physics Education, 48(1), 72. doi: 10.1088/0031-9120/48/1/72 arXiv:1212.3863 [pdf] [1212.3863iopgeostationary.pdf]

### MOE Publication

1. Wee L.K. (2013) Open Source Physics, i in Practice 1(1), p. 58-63, Ministry of Education.[PDF] [iinpracticeOpen Source Physics_PG58-63_lr.pdf]

### Awards

MOE Innergy Awards GOLD 2012

Java

### Final Report

The info is declassified and shared for the benefit of all.

## 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).

## A. Materials

1. Library of Open Source Physics Computer Models
2. Easy Java Simulation 4.37 and above
3. Java Runtime 6 and above
4. Java 3D 1.51 and above

## C. Design :

1. Stage 0: Scan
• Literature review of sound pedagogical designs for computer model.

1. Stage 1: Design
• Co-design lesson package with teachers

1. Stage 2: Implementation
• More co-design Lesson package with teachers
• Focus Group Discussions with students and teachers

1. Stage 3 Refine
• Improve the design based on literature review and students and teachers feedback

## Method:

1. Scan
• Extract useful scholarly articles/papers, simulations (java applets/flash etc) from the internet.

1. 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

1. Implementation
• Allow teachers to carry out lessons after discussions/inputs from students to suit school’s needs.

1. 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 syllabus2) free and accessible to all (no password nor login required) under creative commons attribution3) 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.

Authors: Timberlake, Wee Loo Kang and Fu-Kwun Hwang

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%)

1. Survey
2. 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%.

1. Interview
2. 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%).

1. Survey
2.        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

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.

1. Strategies to improve being like scientists
2.        21% (survey) to 30% (interview) students surveyed also felt they were not like ‘scientists’ for the following reasons:
•        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 questions2) teacher mentorship3) 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:

1.        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.

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.

•         Multiple representations. World view (Figure 14), symbolic (equations) view and scientific (graphs) view should be integrated and visible for a coherent learning experience.

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).

•         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.

Figure 15. Diagram showing the use of the simulation to do trial-and-error.

•          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.

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.

•         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.

Figure 17. Diagram showing a hint popping up just by hovering your mouse over an option.

•          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.

Figure 18. Diagram showing a drop-box feature in the simulations for ease of use.

These six pedagogical design ideas-principles (how to design effective simulations for learning) of computer models provide actionable principles, not exhaustive, can provide some basis for grounding resource development as oppose to broader principles in scholarly literature. These six pedagogical design ideas-principles is directly actionable by resource development work in Curriculum Resource Development as rolled out by Dy DGE (C) in 2014.
1.         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).

1.        Universal access to quality educational resources so that anyone with internet access can download the resources and use them for educational purposes.

## 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 required3) 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:

1. 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.

1. Christian, Wolfgang, Esquembre, Francisco, & Barbato, Lyle. (2011). Open Source Physics. Science, 334(6059), 1077-1078. doi: 10.1126/science.1196984

1. 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.

1. Esquembre, Francisco. (2010). Easy Java Simulations. Retrieved 20 October, 2010, from http://www.um.es/fem/Ejs/Ejs_en/index.html

1. 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).

1. Hwang, F. K., & Esquembre, F. (2003). Easy java simulations: An interactive science learning tool. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer - Enhanced Learning, 5.

1. 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

1. McDermott, Lillian C. (1993). Guest Comment: How we teach and how students learn---A mismatch? American Journal of Physics, 61(4), 295-298.

1. 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

1. 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.

1. 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

1. Wee, Loo Kang. (2012). One-dimensional collision carts computer model and its design ideas for productive experiential learning. Physics Education, 47(3), 301.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

## A. Perception Survey Data

Table III: Table of 6-point likert scale survey data about the enrich learning in 2a meaning making2b giving energy to learn becoming like scientists in3a data collection3b analysis3c creativity and critical thinking

## 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)

## 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 ) http://youtu.be/efMu5i1zFBk http://youtu.be/HLKskwgcix4 http://youtu.be/p-LIEazF6Ps http://youtu.be/NS_SKyG7ABo Evidences (scientists) http://youtu.be/kL0IdxvSpnw http://youtu.be/fatBsHJG20U Evidences (Others) http://youtu.be/c5t5TfJ1-Qw http://youtu.be/_dyloKNo7Kg 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

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/44365627/lookangEJSworkspace/export/ejs_GField_and_Potential_1D_v7wee.jar

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 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).

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.

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.

Move the test mass around and compare the shape of the graph with the g values.

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.

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.

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.

Q11 Is the gravitational potential, φ, a vector or scalar quantity? Give a reason for your answer. (Hint: refer to the definition of gravitational potential.)

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.

## 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 and press enter.
• Click   to launch the test mass with the escape speed and observe whether the test mass manages to reach Moon.

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.

### Credits

http://weelookang.blogspot.sg/search?q=SSTRF&updated-max=2013-11-12T11:30:00%2B08:00&max-results=20&start=7&by-date=false

### end faq

Rating 5.00 (1 Vote)