About

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
Literature review: Key to the literature review process is the access to these reputable scholarly works by paying for the full articles in order to glean the full research insights already published. From some of the freely scholarly works, which our research aims to be as well by paying for the prepetual hosting in these scholarly publishers, the research on use of computer models in the area of gravity physics in under-researched on. From the very limited number of Physics Education research papers on gravity concepts, it is clear our proposal research field is in need of more freely assessible and useful research. Gravity physics education has been a largely difficult topic especially when students habor alternate mental models (Watts, 1982) with research techniques with interviews can yield students cognitive structure (Osborne & Gilbert, 1980). With the advances made in recent times with computer in science education (DiSessa, 1987; Ellington, 1981), many research has been conducted in the area of virtual laboratory (Finkelstein et al., 2005; F.-K. Hwang, 2001, 2010; Jara et al., 2009; Nancheva & Stoyanov, 2005; Sánchez et al., 2005) and computer supported data loggers (Darren, Paul, & See, 2010; Sokoloff, Laws, & Thornton, 2007; Sokoloff & Thornton, 1997; Thornton & Sokoloff, 1990, 1998). The research on effectiveness of use of virtual laboratory has been established (W. K. Adams, 2010; Wendy K. Adams, Paulson, & Wieman, 2008; Finkelstein, et al., 2005; Perkins et al., 2006) with researchers at the Open Source Physics project (Brown, 2009; Christian, 2010; Christian, et al., 2011; F. K. Hwang & Esquembre, 2003; Wee, 2012) and the Physics Education Technology (PhET) project at the University of Colorado at Boulder, USA, clearly indicate the currency of research and computers simulations and models that support interactive engagement (Hake, 1998), suited for inquiry learning. Thus, with the deep TPCK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and skills in the team, our research aims to build on the research artifacts and findings to create customized (Wee & Mak, 2009) computer models and associated lesson packages to advance the field of use of computers in education in the area of learning with technology (Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1999). Our theoretical contribution to research will be on the pedagogical design ideas-principles (Wee, 2012; Wee, et al., 2012) on these computer models that are built using astronomical data, syllabus-customized, free and rapidly prototype with Open Source Physics researchers. The practice research focus on scaling up (Dede, 2007) the use of these computer models and inquiry pedagogy through MOEHQ targeting the 22 pre-universities centres. 
Research Design and Methods: 
  1. Literature Review on the state of simulations use in educational gravity physics.
  2. Literature Review of the pedagogical designs in existing educational gravity physics
  3. Stage 1 of Implementation of sound pedagogical designs into proposal’s computer models
  4. Discussion with teachers on these computer model design and customization needed for they to use the lesson packages more effectively.
  5. Stage 2 of Implementation of sound pedagogical designs into proposal’s computer models
  6. Co-design Lesson package with teachers
  7. Implementation of lesson package
  8. Lesson video recording and observation
  9. FGD Discussion with students and teachers
  10. Stage 3 of Implementation of sound pedagogical designs into proposal’s computer models
  11. Journal Paper publishing
  12. Report writing to inform MOE with findings and recommendations
  13. Scale up lesson packages to 22 pre-universities centre in Singapore
  14. Workshop and Mass briefing
  15. Stage 4 of enhanced pedagogical designs into proposal’s computer models

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.
  3. Brabeck, M. (2008). Why We Need 'Translational Research', Editorial, Education Week, pp. 36-28. Retrieved fromhttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32454766&site=ehost-live
  4. Brown, D. (2009). Video Modeling with Tracker. Paper presented at the American Association of Physics Teachers AAPT Summer Meeting, Ann Arbor. http://cabrillo.edu/~dbrown/tracker/video_modeling.pdf
  5. Brown, D. (2012). Tracker Free Video Analysis and Modeling Tool for Physics Education, 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

Simulations download via the dropbox links

  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

Worksheets download:

  1. worksheets by (lead) YJC: same link of four simulations https://www.dropbox.com/s/53vztw6meupn4r5/GravitationYJC.zip
  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.

RQ5: Did the simulations help you to

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
Other Comments:
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
 
 


Gravity – Physics by Inquiry 
(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 Teachers
Other Requisites:
Nil
Media Dsgn & Tech For Learning,ETD,MOE  2.5 Hr(s) 23/10/2012-23/10/2012 (PM Session)06/11/2012-06/11/2012 (PM Session) 30
30
 
\(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.
download: EJS_4.3.7_120920.zip
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 
  2. https://sites.google.com/a/moe.edu.sg/physicshandbook/ currently require login google moe.edu.sg Physics Handbook with ETD-AST-CPDD-Schools.


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.
    1. ejs_GFieldandPotential1Dv7EarthMoon.jar (1579k)
    2. ejs_EarthAndSatelite.jar (2456k)
    3. ejs_KeplerSystem3rdLaw03.jar (2782k) 
    4. ejs_GField_and_Potential_1D_v7wee.jar (1094k) 
  1. worksheet are 2011 version from YJC here in ICT connection portal lesson examples.
  2.  Virtual Laboratory of Kepler's Third Law Solar System Model Download All Resources required edumall2.0 login
  3. Virtual Laboratory of Geostationary Satellite around Earth Model Download All Resources required edumall2.0 login
  4. Virtual Laboratory Gravitational Field & Potential of Earth and Moon  Download All Resources required edumall2.0 login
  5. Virtual Laboratory Gravitational Field & Potential of 2 Mass Model  Download All Resources required edumall2.0 login
  6.  Writeup:
  7. http://weelookang.blogspot.sg/2012/01/gravity-physics-by-inquiry-2012-innergy.html
  8. https://ideas.moe.gov.sg/InnDisplay.aspx?award=6d088553b5b5ebbb75df36e9d9ebfdc1
  9. Gravity - Physics by Inquiry, GOLD Innergy Award: 2012, 03 May 2012, 0940-1000
  10. 模拟软件让课堂“动”起来(2012-03-30)
  11. Short article on Innergy Project for ASPIRE magazine (May 2012)
  12. lift posters Innergy (HQ) Awards 2012 Gravity Physics by Inquiry
  13. Innergy award GOLD 2012
  14. 1st Physics Subject Chapter Meeting 2012 23 Feb
  15. Gravity-Physics by Inquiry 2012 Innergy Award Submission

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
taken from http://sisltportfolio.missouri.edu/ssg392/bscs5eexecsummary.pdf
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:
  1. Ejs Open Source Gravitational Field & Potential of Earth and Moon Java Applet required NTNU java login
  2. Ejs Open Source Gravitational Field & Potential of 2 Mass Java Applet required NTNU java login
  3. Ejs Open Source Geostationary Satellite around Earth Java Applet required NTNU java login
  4. Ejs Open Source Kepler 3rd Law System Model Java Applet  required NTNU java login

icon https://sites.google.com/a/moe.edu.sg/physicsalevel/gravitational-field




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

My research papers:
http://arxiv.org/a/wee_l_1
My CV:
http://weelookang.blogspot.sg/p/about-me-events-papers-awards.html

 
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]

Conference Paper and Presentations

  1. Wee L.K., Charles Chew, (2014, 09 Oct) SSTRF-ETD_2012_01 Gravity Physics by Inquiry, MOE Professional Forum on Research and Practice (Poster Presentations) AST Auditorium

Awards

MOE Innergy Awards GOLD 2012

Software Requirements

Java

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

 

5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rating 5.00 (1 Vote)