The analysis of data allows us to uncover and focus on relevant difficulties for future teachers in mastering the concepts of centre of mass and conservation of energy. These documents provide insights into students' initial and evolving conceptions, as well as their attitudes towards the activity. We collected data before, during and after the experimental activity by means of written questions, oral discussions and final reports. The sequence starts with student teachers approaching the historical problem and culminates in a guided inquiry activity in a video-based laboratory (VBL) setting using Tracker software. In this paper we report on an activity sequence with a group of 29 pre-service physics teachers based on the reconstruction and analysis of a thought experiment that was crucial for Huygens' derivation of the formula for the centre of oscillation of a physical pendulum. That are difficult to visualize their velocity versus time graphs such as 2Ĭases compare to tossing up a ball with a) with a greater force on Earth and b) Pedagogical use of Tracker to extend the learning of free fall by means ofĪllowing students to construct simple dynamic particle models for scenarios Innovative and effective way to learn free fall motion. Initial research findings suggest thatĪllowing learners to relate abstract physics concepts to real life throughĬoupling traditional video analysis and eventually video modeling could be an We found within experimental group gains withĬohens effect size d = 0.79 error 0.23 (large effect) and normalized gains withĪ gradient of g total = 0.42 error 0.08 (medium gain) above the traditionalīaseline value of g non interactive=0.23 for all the 6 teachers, 3 classes of Multi-choice questions as a proxy to assess learning gains in pre and posttest Physics classes in a mainstream school in Singapore where we used a 8 This is a case study with (N=123) students of express-pure This paper reports the use of Tracker as a pedagogical tool in supportingĮffective learning and teaching of toss up and free fall motion for beginning A possible completed model is th shown in Figure 4 by trial and error, notice the 15 frame is slightly off from the real data but is somewhat close. Even with incorrect models input in, the results from the world view and associated multiple representational views (Wong, Sng, Ng, & Wee, 2011) in various scientific plots can allow the facilitation of data driven social discussions (Chai, Lim, So, & Cheah, 2011) among students and teacher(s). We have used Tracker with our students and initial findings suggest that this kind of video modeling pedagogy is suitable for active and deep learning because the students can be said to be predicting by keying certain values, observing by compare the real data with the current proposed model, and explaining (White & Gunstone, 1992) by choice of values and linking to the video analysis data. Similarly, by keying in for the fx ≠ 0 N when mass of projectile m = 1 kg, the students can observe paths similar to Figure 3 for example fx = 10 N and compare the real data (red) versus the fx =10 N model (teal) to be not the vertically projected downward ‘shadow’ of the real data, thus this incorrect model is not representative of the real motion. Novice students also have little means in typical classroom settings to understand why in projectile motion, 2 there is no acceleration in the x direction where ax = 0 m/s, confused by their prior knowledge perhaps from movies of propelled projectile motion like rockets. We suggest an activity where student key in values for the initial velocity vx in the dynamic model and observe the real data (red) versus the constant vx model (pink), and make sense for themselves that instantaneous velocity is equal to 1.77 m/s at all times of the projectile motion as in Figure 2. Novice students generally may not fully appreciate the meaning of constant velocity in the x–direction of projectile 2 motion as imply in equation (3x) and (4x) when ax = 0 m/s. Readers may find this YouTube video (Wee, 2010c) useful that shows how the same process of building a dynamic model on the same projectile motion. dynamic particle model is selected as it is more suitable for this projectile motion instead of the analytic particle model as more complex drag force affected motion can be more easily modeled and be compared to the video.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |