Effectiveness of Computer Laboratory Based E-Learning Instructional Program On Addressing Misconceptions in Projectile Motion

E-learning in Physics 1
Running head: E-LEARNING INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM
Effectiveness of Computer Laboratory Based E-Learning Instructional Program on Addressing
Misconceptions in Projectile Motion
Wee Loo Kang
Email: weelookang@gmail.com
Year: 2007
National Institute of Education (NIE) an institute of Nanyang Technological University (NTU)
Assignment MM800
Mentored by
Dr. Cheung Wing Sum
Email: wingsum.cheung@nie.edu.sg
&
Dr. Hew Khe Foon
Email: khefoon.hew@nie.edu.sg
Abstract
This paper focus is to collect, analyze and provide further understanding on the impact of
transformative e-learning instructional design computer-based lessons do better address
misconceptions from learning by doing, using physics topic projectile motion.
The data collected suggests students do score slightly higher in pre-and-post test analysis of a
concept test paper but the difference is 90% significance. The level of significance difference
depends also on the facilitator’s level of maturity in facilitating e-lessons.
Thus, it is suggested that IT lessons should not be forced upon teachers who are uncomfortable
using IT but be encouraged among teachers who possess the prerequisite to facilitate IT lessons
that make the pedagogy of e-learning work.
Students reflected some level of discomfort in e-lessons with learning by doing due to
insufficient student-to-teacher interaction, their own level of IT literacy and a higher degree of
cognitive processes in learning by doing. It is recommend that time be devoted to e-lessons
which have components of inquiry learning and learning by doing through use of interactive
applets but the success of the e-lessons depends on the pedagogy of learning designed in face to
face classroom teaching and computer based learning environment.

Introduction
Although it is somewhat of a cliché that computers are revolutionizing education, it is
still not common in the 21st century to find computer-based interactive curricular materials
(Christian 2000). Adopting these technologies may improve the teaching of physics concepts.
The rapid pace of hardware, operating system development and internet browser standards have
made it difficult for text and software authors to produce computer-rich curricular materials that
were not obsolete shortly after publication. Hence, by developing open source and sharable e-
lessons, we can distribute multimedia-rich curricular materials. Copyrights issues are addressed
by giving full credits to original authors and websites.
There are interactive digital media, such as, java applets that allow users to manipulate
variables to observe changes in the affected variables. There are also websites with extensive
content on physics topics. However, few websites have coherent integration of sound
pedagogical instructional materials, well conceived and is customizable to suit the specific
objectives of other educators.
I am working on integrating effective media and content, using sound instructional design
e-learning principles and learning strategies, to bring interactive e-learning to a Singapore
middle-tier junior college physics education. I have developed a coherent e-lesson on projectile
motion, drawing on readily available resources on the internet and materials like educational
videos, which took much of my personal time to piece together. Whenever possible,
acknowledgements of the source of the materials are hyperlinked throughout my e-lesson, with
most authors, avid contributors of their materials for non commercial purposes. I have received
positive feedback from my physics students in my classes about the mini lesson course material
that I have designed. I also did a school sharing about the relative success I had with using sound
learning strategies with technology as partner, to engage the learners.
Problem statement
Traditional classroom teaching without the use of computer simulation tends to be
difficult in addressing misconceptions in projectile motion. Computer based laboratory e-lessons
facilitated by an instructor with sound instructional strategies and ease of use, can meaningfully
enhance and complement the existing Singapore schools physics education.
Rationale
Integration of effective use of information technology (IT) has not moved on with the
zest called by Third Masterplan for ICT in Education (MOE 2008). Some teachers are contented
to teach using chalk and talk, as they have always been able to produced ‘desired results’ from
students’ tests and national examinations. While some teachers lament about the extensive effort
needed to incorporate effective e-lessons, after being swarmed with school duties and unending
amount of administrative work, usually decide not to e-innovate and e-enhance their lessons.
Some teachers may lack the appropriate skill set in computer problem solving and technical
know how, usually needed when conducting an e-lesson. The findings from this research may
potentially draw more educational policy makers and teachers to re-evaluate and promote
effective ways to design learning environments with the infusion of sound e-lesson pedagogy
when appropriate. The focus of the paper is collect, analyze and provide further understanding on
the impact of e-learning instructional design and computer-based lessons, on addressing
misconception from learning by doing, in physics topic projectile motion.

Research questions
1. Can an instructor during computer based laboratory lessons, using treatment e-lessons
to facilitate student centered activities, address misconceptions more effectively than typical
classroom, pen and paper lessons?
2. Did the e-lessons encourage students to develop good attitudes and affections towards
learning, as compared to traditional classroom ‘chalk and talk’ settings?
Scope and Objectives
To determine the impact of addressing misconceptions from computer based e-learning
instructional program on physics topic projectile motion in the ‘A’ level syllabus in 13 week
research cycle.
Literature Review
Key definition of concepts
Misconceptions in projectile motion can be defined as common sense belief in students
that are incompatible with established scientific theory of Newtonian mechanics (Hallouna and
Hestenes 1985).
These misconceptions in projectile motion are not arbitrary or trivial misunderstanding
about motion. They are common among students today and were seriously advocated by leading
intellectuals in pre-Newtonian times.
Key characteristics of concepts and misconceptions
Misconceptions and scientific concepts in projectile motion can be roughly characterized
in chronological order.
Aristotelian Physics
Aristotelian physics believes that rest state is the "natural state" for all objects, and every
motion has a cause. Aristotle recognized two kinds of cause or force: (1) an inherent force or
tendency of every object to seek its natural place and (2) a contact force (push or pull) exerted by
some external agent (object or medium). The heavier body falls faster (farther) in proportion to
its weight. Aristotle also proposed that in the absence of any force an object comes to rest
immediately (Hallouna and Hestenes 1985). Of course, these Aristotle’s physics are not valid
understandings of projectile motion.
Impetus Physics
Impetus physics refers to "a mover, while moving a body, impresses on it a certain
impetus, a certain power capable of moving this body in the direction in which the mover set it
going, whether upwards, downwards, sideways or in a circle. It is by this impetus that the stone
is moved after the thrower ceases to move it; but because of the resistance of the air and the
gravity of the stone, which inclines it to move in a direction opposite to that towards which the
impetus tends to move it, this impetus is continually weakened. Therefore the movement of the
stone will become continually slower, and at length, the impetus is so diminished or destroyed
that the gravity of the stone prevails over it and moves the stone down towards its natural place."
(Hallouna and Hestenes 1985)
The list of examples given here are not exhaustive.
• A fired object initially moves in the direction of firing. Only after some impetus
has to be used up can gravity act and the object fall towards the ground
(McCloskey 1983a).
• An object that is dropped from a moving carrier does not receive any impetus, and
therefore tends to drop straight down (Millar and Kragh 1994). However, air
resistance and the speed of the carrier might affect the actual direction of motion.
• If an object is moving, then there must be a force in the direction of motion (Tao
and Gunstone 1999).
• Falling objects possess more gravity than stationary objects, which the latter may
possess none at all (Vosniadou 1994).
Naive Physics
Any other misconceptions that is not compatible with Newtonian Theories of Motion can
be classified as Naive physics (Hecht and Bertamini 2000).
Newtonian Theories of Motion
Newton's First Law states that an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a
straight line unless acted upon by an external force. Newton’s second law states the rate of
change in the momentum of an object is directly proportional to the amount of net force exerted
upon the object and takes place in the direction of the force. Newton's Third Law states that all
forces in nature occur in pairs of forces which are equal in magnitude, opposite in direction and
act on different bodies (Nave 2006). These laws combined with kinematics equation under
constant acceleration, represent the current state of valid model of understanding that explains
the motion of a projectile.

Synthesis of previous findings
Projectile motion
The principles of motion and influences on motion have highlighted the key common
sense concepts which are experienced based but inconsistent with Newton’s scientific theory of
motion. The taxonomy of common sense physics about motion proposed in (Hallouna and
Hestenes 1985) has allowed a systematic classification of the misconceptions about projectile
motion that can provide a glimpse of the preconceived pre-Newtonian ideas of motion that some
students may have. This information allow for designing an instructional e-lesson to facilitate the
addressing of misconceptions. A few studies have attempted to change student misconceptions
about projectile motion, and the two highlighted cases (Gunstone, Gray et al. 1992) and (Thijs
1992) are in classroom situations. A common method has been that of cognitive conflict (Behr
and Harel 1990), described by (Liew and Treagust 1995) as a 3 step approach of predict-observe
explain (POE) teaching sequence. In Piagetian terms, the conflict between what was predicted
and what is observed may lead to disequilibrium and the construction of a new cognitive
structure (Tao and Gunstone 1999).
Literature on cognitive conflict suggested that it would be most successful when students
are made acutely aware of their misconceptions, coupled with discussion on common
misconceptions made explicit in teaching & learning process, and followed by reflection on
projectile motion in a variety of familiar contexts (Prescott 2004).
Use of technology in Education
The trend toward life long learning, coupled with demands for more flexibility in when,
how and where learning occurs, is increasingly pressurizing the traditional higher education
institutions to change their methods and delivery of instruction. While adopting commercially
available learning platforms may seem a straightforward solution, introducing new technologies
is not sufficient. More conceptually, there is also pressure on higher education to renew and
refresh its vision of teaching and learning in view of the current learning theories (Lenaerts and
Wieme 2004).
Given the progress of technology and internet, some advancement in education has been
made in this area. Many researchers would still agree that not enough research had been done on
the effectiveness of computer-based instructional learning (Titus, Martin et al. 1998), this wait-
and-see approach has been largely adopted, that many thoughtful teachers were unwilling to
invest the time and energy on creation of e-learning. Good educational software and teacher-
support tools, developed with full understanding of principles of learning, have not yet become
the norm (Bransford, Brown et al. 2000). The prohibitively expensive software licenses pose a
real problem for educational and research institutions (Greene 2001). It is argued that authors
and publishers are unwilling to develop materials to complement textbook publication, due to the
rapid development of the computer technology (Christian 2001). Though I have come to
understand that there are exemplar of book publisher McGraw-Hill Higher Education working
with authors like (Giambattista, Richardson et al. 2007) to host flash and java interactive that are
pedagogically sound, flavored with learning by doing .
There are researchers that propose systems to capitalize e-learning like using free and
open source software (FOSS) (Sanchez 2005). Under the GNU General Public License (GPL),
software like Open Source Physics Project (OSP) (Christian 2006) called Physlets (Belloni,
Christian et al. 2006) , allowed physics educators and students to use the java scripts and codes
to control the base simulations. Another innovation is Easy Java Simulations (Ejs) (Esquembre
2007) which is a modeling program that allowed physics educators and students to create physics
simulations using the java code generator developer environment to create new physics
simulations. I have successfully created a simple harmonic simulation (Wee and Esquembre
2008) by following the tutorials in Ejs download (Christian and Esquembre 2007) and it is a
great modeling program for education because of its flexible and ability to simulate complex
mathematical models. The question of whether to use a simulation as an illustration or to have
students create their own simulations is a pedagogical choice for which good arguments exist on
both sides. I agree there should be a transition from using simulations to creating them as
students progress through the curriculum (Brown 2006) this is also largely dependent on the
individual students’ level of IT competency and motivation to learn deeply.
There are also freely available but non-customizable websites with java simulations or
applets like Physics Illuminations (Greene 2001), Java Applets on Physics by (Fendt 2002),
General Physics Java Applets by (Reddy 2004), Learn Physics using Java by (Ng 2002) and
Physics Applets by (Bothun 2007). These authors usually allow free use their java applets onsite,
or some allow mirror sites to be setup, for educational purposes. The source codes for these
applets may not be freely shared so it will be difficult to change and customize the applets. The
outstanding exception is NTNU Virtual Physics Laboratory by (Hwang 2007) which has a
customizable java simulation capability by sharing of source codes license under Creative
Commons Attribution 2.5 Taiwan. Generally, these websites cover the functionality of the
applets but these learning by doing applets but need the teachers to design suitable pedagogy
activities around the simulation applet, to make the learning more deep and meaningful (Weiman
and Perkins 2005), instead of just manipulating the variables. Some would agree that techno-
centric approach to courseware development (Rieber 2000) has been largely the way teachers
selectively use some of these applets, capitalizing on what the applets can do, to redesign the e-
lessons around these applets, which is close to what I did for this e-lesson.
These simulations are very thought provoking and make learning very visual, they are
excellent educational additions, but cannot replace the classical classroom education (Nancheva
and Stoyanov 2005). Many will agree on the validity of integrating technology as partner rather
than technology as the sole medium of instruction with blending approaches in the classroom.
Students do not learn from technology, they learn from thinking and engaging in activity. A
sufficiently rich and engaging learning environment must be created to enable the student to
situate his or her understanding of concepts and principles over against the concept being taught
(Martin, Austen et al. 2001). With the increasing use of the world wide web (WWW) in our
culture, it is likely that students will become very comfortable with web-based tools in education
(Titus, Martin et al. 1998).
Learning Strategies
Evidence points to the fact that students learn less than we intend them to and to bring
about conceptual change requires the introduction of new teaching and learning habits (Lenaerts
and Wieme 2004).
The researchers and teachers have come to know that students frequently find it difficult
to grasp many concepts in physics, often because these concepts are complex or abstract and
cannot be visualized or made concrete, or it is not feasible or possible to demonstrate them in a
practical way in the classroom.

Technology allows for experimentation on phenomena such as free-fall due to gravity,
and many others, to assist students to visualize physical situations that are not possible or safe to
explore under traditional classroom conditions without the use of such technology. With
computer-aided assessment, students can receive immediate feedback about their progress (Titus,
Martin et al. 1998). Multimedia-enhanced questions can use motion and sound to illustrate
pertinent information.
Applet simulations model physical phenomena where questions can be asked regarding
the phenomena, leading students to think critically about the problem. On occasions, students
need to collect data from the applet simulations model and perform calculations in order to
answer the questions presented. Otherwise simply viewing the simulation may be enough for
students to understand the problem exercise (Belloni, Christian et al. 2006).
Homework is a tremendous motivator for students, and provides motivation to study
continuously throughout the week rather than procrastinating until homework is due providing
assessment on a frequent basis keeps students more focused on material presented in class.
(Titus, Martin et al. 1998)
Allowing the learner to work independently or collaboratively either in school or at home
is a good way to get students to learn. Out-of-class study time can be utilized to improve student
learning of basic physics concepts (Greene 2001). Doing more requires individualized instruction
and productive out-of-class effort on the part of the student. Depending on the students’ learning
preference, learning in the computer laboratory can take the form of one-to-one with the
computer or in pair-work. All students can benefit from the interactivity and immediacy of a
well-designed computer-aided educational system compared to other traditional learning tools,
such as textbooks. (Greene 2001)

Problems when using computer as partner
While integrating Information and Communications Technology (ICT) into the classroom
may increase motivation and interest in the “fun stuff”, a teacher may be faced with increased
reluctance to attend non-computer-based activities. Students would still need the textbook for
doing homework and study at home while some students actually prefer classroom teaching. This
could be due to the pen and paper mode of assessment in national examination and learning is
less demanding on the cognitive processes compared to guided learning by exploring and doing.
Administrative rights to the computer operating system (OS), and ‘slow’ computers due
to host of programs running in the background in schools computer is a self inflicted problem
due perhaps overriding importance to cyber security from Ministry of Education (MOE).
When problems occur, can the teacher remedy the situation quickly? This reminds me
why some teachers are reluctant to use computers because it is simply too late and frustrating to
file a help request to the school Technical Assistant (TA).
The burden of overcoming technical obstacles will hinder the harnessing of ICT as a
teaching and learning aid in the physics classroom, with the focus on how to use the technology
itself rather than on the learning that should be taking place.
It is suggested that teachers go through a pilot testing and prepare for the e-lesson before
assigning students to the e-learning material as technical problems are bound to occur without
testing. (Belloni, Christian et al. 2006)
Knowledge gap in the current literature
Much of the methods and research have been on using classroom setting to challenge the
students to be consistent in their reasoning, and the much reported stubbornness of student
intuitive ideas may be due to the cognitive strain in forming different ideas as the students try to
make sense of the questions asked. (Green, MarceL et al. 1998)
Although there has been much reference to the effectiveness of using classroom setting in
mechanics (Arons 1990), detailed explanation or advice on its implementation has not been
readily available.
There are research that indicated dramatic improvement of academic achievement was
found in the learner-centered virtual reality (VR) group, followed by teacher-centered VR group
and lastly teacher-centered group (Kim, Park et al. 2001) on physics concepts wave propagation,
ray optics, relative velocity, electric machines but not on projectile motion.
Research by (Tao and Gunstone 1997) conducted in a naturalistic environment of
fourteen Grade 10 students, to address misconceptions through predict-observe-explain (POE)
tasks using a series of computer simulations program with pen and paper using constructivist
framework for students’ interactions. Their findings examine the core of conceptual change, why
it occurred and why it didn’t for some, due to pre-conceived knowledge etc. There was little
statistical level conclusions based on a larger population of students.
Thus, my research will attempt to focus on statistical significant and conducted in a
Singapore junior college context, with the key thrust of designing e-lesson.
Method
E-Learning Designing Framework for Student Centered E-lesson Instructional Programme
Broadly speaking, my e-learning design framework for the e-lesson is influenced by 7
design principles (Chickering and Ehrmann 1996), e-learning evaluation framework
‘FREEDOM’ (Schank 2002) and student centered design (Jonassen and Land 2000). As for the
human computer interface, general design guidelines (Norman 2002) are used subtly in the
creation of the instructional program.
The 9 principles of learning under constructivist theory (Hein 1991) are
epistemologically based however I did not explore this e-lesson design principles in mind, due to
time constraints of the treatment period of only 3 hours of lessons.
Giving the motivation to learn
A good course supplies motivation or builds upon motivation that is there in the first
place (Schank 2002).
Students will not learn anything even from the best course if they cannot see how and
what they will learn apply to them.
Since projectile motion may or may not be inherently motivating to know, I embed the
relevance of knowing projectile motion in context of how it affects sport scientists discovery of
throwing ball games, like in free throws in football, making it motivating to draw personal
motivation from. I aim to use motivation to cause the students’ memories to be permanently
altered.
Encourages Contacts between Students and Instructor
Frequent student-instructor contact in and out of class is an important factor in student
motivation and involvement. The instructor’s concern helps students get through rough times and
keep on working. Knowing a few teachers well, enhances students’ intellectual commitment and
encourages them to think about their own values and plans (Chickering and Ehrmann 1996). The
communication capabilities of the computer must be used to create a feed-back loop between
instructor and student (Christian 2001). I used computer laboratory lessons where the teacher
acts as facilitator instead of independent e-learning at home, as a means to promote frequent
contacts between students in their pair work and between students and teacher. The e-lesson aims
to provide useful resources, and provide for joint problem solving and shared learning
environment to augment face-to-face contact in and outside of class meetings.
Develops Reciprocity and Cooperation among Students
Learning is enhanced when it involves pair work or team effort. Good learning, like good
work, is collaborative and social. Working with others often increases involvement in learning.
Sharing one’s ideas and responding to others’ improves thinking and deepens understanding.
The pair work assignment during computer laboratory lesson promotes collaborative
learning and group problem solving. Discussion on the worksheet assignment can dramatically
strengthened communication between students and also provides a sense of achievement of
completion of core concepts and accountability on the students’ part during e-learning.
Use Active Learning Techniques, Learning by Doing with Failure of Expectation
They must discuss about what they are learning, writing reflectively about it, relating it to
past experiences, and applying it to their daily lives. They must make what they learn part of
themselves. The worksheet aims to allow thinking about and re-accounting concepts and
misconceptions that they have encountered. I have designed simple questions supporting
apprentice-like activities in using the internet to gather information require for solving higher
order questions. The simulation applet requires them to think about what variables are to be
changed while keeping others constant, allowing the students to observe things for themselves..
The failures of expectation (Schank 2002) when using the applet, serves to surprise the student
causes an attempt to revise the knowledge base by seeking explanations. The simulation of a
projectile can be visually analyzed by selecting whether it is the displacement, velocity vectors
or acceleration vector that they want to study. The students must decide what data to analyze and
collect and how to most efficiently collect it (Christian 2001). By changing their input variables
in the simulation, this allow instant and real time resulting changes, promoting more thoughtful
analysis and build deeper understanding of the phenomena, encourages exploration and enables
inquiry (Schank 2002). This activity is risk free compared to actually doing it in the classroom
or physics laboratory, and is low cost compared to typical real equipment like data loggers. I
designed the e-lesson to have sufficient online activity as well as pen and paper, practice in doing
(Schank 2002) through the 3 problem solving questions in projectile motion. Having done the
problems allows them to internalize and reflect on how well they did it, and prepare to try again
for slightly different problems.
Gives Prompt Feedback
Through using the worksheet, students get to reflect on what they have learned, what they
still need to know, and how they might assess themselves. Use of immediate feedback in the
form of the multi choice questions aims to also support the person-to-person feedback, during
lesson time. The java applet simulations and the flash lessons on projectile motion also provide
immediate feedback. I have created scaffolds in the form of an screen capture with audio
explanations, demonstrating ways to use the java applet meaningfully and provide initial learning
support to the learner. The learner can choose to use it once or more times, there after do not
need to use it again once the learner is confident to use the applet meaningfully (Bonham 2005).
The use of dynamic graphics, videos on physics phenomena and flash projectile activity with
questions with immediate feedback though the java scripting, aims to provide more personalized
feedback to common misconceptions faced by the students as well as incite an emotional
response (Schank 2002) to tied the content through powerful demonstration of videos and
dynamic images.
Practice in Reasoning
The lesson encourages practice in reasoning (Schank 2002) whether classroom or
computer based. The 3 steps involved in solving any problem in projectile are:
1. Assume the origin of coordinate (0, 0) as the point of launch of the projectile
2. Fill in the end condition into the 2 equations of motion under constant acceleration
(which is actually four equations if you think about x and y direction independently)
 v x   u cosθ   0   s x   u cosθ  1 0  2
  =  +   t and   = 
 v  u sinθ   t +  t
2  − g 
 y   − g  s y   u sinθ 
3. Think and decide what you need and how to solve the problem
The reason for step 1 is that the fact that the equation of motion under constant
 sx 0  0 
acceleration has an initial displacement vector of   and when equated to 
 0 
 , thus
 s y 0   
 s x   s x 0   u cosθ  1 0  2  s x   u cosθ  1 0  2
 =   
 s   s  +  u sinθ  t + 2  − g  t becomes  s  =  u sinθ  t + 2  − g  t . The e-lesson will
 y   y0       y    
facilitate the reasoning of this relationship. By teaching students projectile motion as a
continuation of vectors learnt earlier in the year promotes practice as well.

Emphasizes Time on Task
Learning to use one’s time well is critical for students, the guide given to them is to read
the real life motivation journal article last, even though it is the first section of the instructional
program. Allocating realistic amounts of time means conducting 3 one hour e-lesson aims to help
students to do effective learning. By making the material available online 24/7, allows students
to make better use of time when they are in class can get access to important resources for
learning.
Communicates High Expectations
Expecting students to perform well becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Through use of
the motivational article on the art of throwing, I aim to demonstrate that this is a significant real-
life problem with conflicting perspectives or paradoxical data sets. These can set powerful
learning challenges that drive students to not only acquire information but sharpen their
cognitive skills of analysis, synthesis, application, and evaluation. There are some open ended
questions to get students to design the own inquiry on the general rule for the same horizontal x-
direction displacement by changing the launch angle of the projectile motion, to challenge the
more able students.
Respects Diverse Talents and Ways of Learning
The design of a self pace e-lesson, encourage on by pair work, aims to recognize the fact
that there are many paths that lead to optimum learning. Different students bring different talents
and styles to the class. Students are given opportunities to show their talents and learn in ways
that work for them, by giving recognition and encouragement. Then they can be pushed to learn
in new ways that do not come so easily. Aided by technologies, students with similar motives
and talents can work in cohort study groups without constraints of time and place.
Background where the study was conducted
This study was conducted in Yishun Junior College (Singapore) in the month of February
2007. The students joined the junior college using their Secondary School Preliminary
Examinations results, with a minimum of 20 points in 1 language and 5 relevant subjects (L1R5).
The students offer 9745 H2 Physics syllabus (2007) and some have prerequisite knowledge
about Physics in their ‘O’ level syllabus either Physics 5052 at ‘O’ Level or Science (Physics,
Chemistry) 5152 or Science (Physics, Biology) 5153 with Physics component. Though most of
the students are waiting for the release of their ‘O’ Level results, most respond well to the
lessons, with some exceptions. A total of 6 classes participated in this research through their
normal timetable, pre and post test and treatment were conducted in their natural setting of the
school. There were 3 classes in the experimental group and 3 classes in the control group, each
taken by one instructor. A total of 82 students took the pre and post test, of which 18 are JC1
repeat students and they were excluded in the analysis to focus on students that are not formally
introduced to the physics ideas on projectile motion.
Procedure detail step by step account of what you actually did
I managed to integrate an e-lesson through use of webpage design format (html) using e-
learning designing framework for student centered e-lesson instructional program, which include
1. Videos from The Education Group ‘The Video Encyclopedia of Physics
Demonstrations’(Group 2003-2005),
2. Projectile motion java applet by Walter Fendt (Fendt 2002),
3. Flash interactive lessons from Monterey Institute for Technology and Education, on
Advanced Placement Physics B Courses (Education 2003),
4. Flash projectile activity by Adrian Watt, Absorb Physics for A-Level, Crocodile Clips
Ltd (Watt 2004),
5. Some questions and graphics from Tom Henderson from the website The Physics
Classroom (Henderson 1996-2005),
6. Java simulation interactive by on shooting a coconut release by a monkey for the book
College Physics 2nd Edition (Giambattista, Richardson et al. 2007) and
7. PDF document from physicsweb.org on the Physics of throwing: A new angle on
throwing (Linthorne 2006)
Cycling through the Analysis-Design-Development-Implementation-Evaluation (ADDIE)
model of instructional design, I was able to put together a coherent e-lesson aimed at providing a
learning environment for projectile motion in general, as well as addressing most of the
misconceptions most students may have. I also had a Rapid Prototyping Phase (Tripp and
Bichelmeyer 1990) with my H1 Physics students, getting them to learn and experience the e-
lesson first, and collect useful information that will help to refine and debug the e-lesson.
I have prepared a concept test of 24 questions (only 23 are used for mean due to change
in question 2) to be taken in 50 minutes during normal lesson time.
I have conducted a quasi experiment using a self-constructed pre and post test and on a
total of 6 classes taking H2 physics syllabus on the month of February. I used P07 class as beta-
testing on my test questions, refined the test questions and check for coefficient of reliability
Cronbach’s Alpha, average inter-item correlation between questions. I decided to add some
details like drawings to make the questions clear and more visual and thus easier to understand
the questions being asked. The 24 questions are largely the same, except for question 2, which
was changed because most in the pilot got the question correct as ’parabola’ and it doesn’t really
test concept, more a recall question. Moreover, a student highlighted to have questions that
chooses ‘not enough information to determine’ as an option, thus, a new question 2 was
designed.
The initial plan was to have data collection from the 2 volunteer instructor classes but I
also conduct on my own classes for statistical reasons. In the end, I include my own classes,
because the 2 instructors’ classes’ students ‘fail’ to complete the pre and pro tests in ‘statistically
significant’ numbers.
To use the recycled data collected on P07, I need to match the answers to five questions
due to a reordering of (question 15 to 19) while question 2 is a different question which will be
removed from the result analysis, thus the findings from the study will remain unbiased with pre
and post test consistency.
General instructions to instructors
The instructors were briefed to keep both the control class and the experimental class
somewhat equal in efforts to address misconceptions in the course of the problem solving
discussions in class. Details of equality in teaching variables in both groups were left to the
instructors. Instructors were briefed not to reveal or discuss the answers to the questions in direct
relationship to the test paper questions. If general questions related to concepts of the test paper
were asked by the students during the lesson time, the instructor can discuss the questions and
provide detail discussions, but not drawing the attention of the students to the test paper.
Control Group
Classroom teaching focus on instruction, and it is argued that it is not necessarily the best
model of teaching (Chee 2004). In the classroom control groups, mainly the tutorial questions
were discussed on. The instructors were briefed to keep both the control class and the
experimental class roughly equal in efforts to address misconceptions in the course of the
problem solving discussions in class. Instructor Lim used a more group work learning strategy
in the classroom teaching. She typically led the students in group work, a formalize set of rules
for writing and discussing solutions with shoulder partners and opposite partners, making group
work a norm for her class. Both Instructor Goh and Researcher Wee used a more typical
classroom teaching approach, utilizing the whiteboard or visualizer with projector, the more
‘sage on stage’ approach. Researcher Wee use the projectile java simulation applet (Fendt 2002)
projected on the screen, with P07 during the 1st lesson, as a visualization tool, instead of hand
drawing the path of a projectile motion.
Experimental Group
Preparing the computer laboratory
To ease the administrative load of booking of the computer laboratory by the instructors,
I mass booked the library media resource room, selective time slots to coincident with the classes
involved in computer based learning. The benefit of this preparation allows the instructor to
carry out the intervention for the experimental group with minimum administrative load. I also
test the computers for the appropriate plug-ins like acrobat reader, java and flash, before the
intervention timeframe. I prepared a backup storage program accessible by the school intranet
called the ‘Project Folder’ in case of failure of internet connection. As I conduct e-lessons
occasionally used this room, most of the problems have been ironed out. The school’s student
and teacher computers in my college, at one time, could not play flash 8 movies, accurate as of
November 2006, alerted me to convert the future e-lessons with movie clips to be in windows
media player format.
Intervention
In the computer laboratory lesson, the venue is always the library media resource room
with 15 to 20 computers. The students will take some time to turn on the computers, login and go
to the internet address for the e-lesson.

http://www.asknlearn.com/contentpackaging/13903/RS35/projectilewee.htm
Sometimes, the internet can be slow so there is some wait time for the e-lesson to start.
For the first one hour lesson, students usually go through the flash lesson. Instructor will go
round to facilitate the pair of students in their e-learning. The instructor may use the projector to
bring everyone to the same problem in the lesson and demonstrate how to use the program etc.
By the second lesson, the worksheet was implemented, thanks to feedback from Instructor Lim,
and the students now have a pen and paper mode of question based guided learning. By the third
lesson, students continue to explore the lesson and in closing, depending on available time, the
instructor may choose to highlight some of the activity that most students would not be able to
access like watching some of the video. It is assumed that only the experimental group has to
internet address to the e-lesson, and might visit the link after school hours.
Data analysis
I choose to analyze the research data in its completeness, with all 3 instructors, students
who are fresh from their secondary school only, without the repeating JC1 students, who have
taken both pre test and post test, and regardless of pre test score. The rationale for this is with all
3 instructors’ inputs, the number of students is 64, which aims to offer statistically significance
sample size in the mean score of post test score. Including all the students reflect more the
complex conditions for which the students took the test and did very poorly or exceeding
expectations, instead of filtering the data that is normalized. I also hope to give research
creditability by reporting much as rich details as possible, without sounding incoherent.
The 38 participants in the treatment group (M = 12.5, SD = 4.2) and the 26 participants in
the control group (M = 12.6, SD = 3.9), demonstrated no significance difference in pre test
performance (t [57] = 0.08, p = .94), d = .02. After the 3 one hour lesson intervention, the 38
participants in the treatment group (M = 17.0, SD = 3.2) and the 26 participants in the control
group (M = 16.0, SD = 2.6), still demonstrated no significance difference in post test
performance (t [60] = -1.20, p = .22), d = .32.which is not what hope for, but kind of expected for
reasons like relatively short treatment period, emotional anxiety on upcoming ‘O’ level results,
mindset of students on teacher chalk and talk and lack of relevant experiences of students with
learning by doing e-lessons.
(Posner, Strike et al. 1982) and more recently (Sinatra and Pintrich 2003) , have
emphasized some extents of affective factors in conceptual change. Thus, my Test of Projectile
Motion-Physics Related Attitudes (TOPRA) (did they did they enjoy physics, find physics
interesting, etc). and Affective Outcome Scale (AOS) (helped them better understand physics
principles, they are more confident of their knowledge of physics now etc) aim to make sense of
the extent of the affective domains affecting the test results, especially since the outcome of the
test results shows an insignificant improvement on the post test performance in the treatment
group over the control group.
While I would have “liked” to see a more positive attitudes and affective outcome in the
treatment group, there are many factors that influence a student’s disposition toward a subject,
like their secondary school experience with physics, ease of doing well in assessment, the
teachers that teaches physics etc. I, too, may be overly ambitious to expect my e-lessons
materials to have great impact here. (Martin, Austen et al. 2001)
Reliability and Validity
To check for the coefficient of reliability Cronbach’s Alpha, average inter-item
correlation between questions, an analysis was conducted on the test questions. Based on an
initial draft of the test questions, the Cronbach’s Alpha based on the 24 questions is 0.81. I also
did a reliability statistics on Question 3 and 5 which test concept of acceleration is downwards
towards centre of Earth at a magnitude of 9.81 m/s^2 (a y = -g), which Cronbach’s Alpha = 1.0.
Another reliability statistics on Question 4, 11, 12 and 14 which test concept of initial horizontal
velocity is equal to final horizontal velocity due to a constant velocity motion in the horizontal
direction ( u x = v x ), Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.76.
I have prepared a concept test (some original questions, some modified) and my school
teacher Lim, Senior Teacher Wong and Senior Teacher Tai have vetted the concept test paper
and all agreed the questions are relevant to test the concepts on projectile motion. Doctoral
Student Chew in NIE who is a physics researcher has reviewed the test paper. This way, I used
external and internal expert members to check the validation of the test paper on assessing
students misconceptions on projectile motion.
Findings
1. Can an instructor during computer based laboratory lessons, using treatment e-lessons
to facilitate student centered activities, address misconceptions more effectively than typical
classroom, pen and paper lessons?
For Research Wee, who is the creator of the e-lesson, his 13 participants in the treatment
group (M = 10.0, SD = 3.4) and the 7 participants in the control group (M = 12.9, SD = 4.1),
demonstrated no significance difference in pre test performance (t [11] = 1.59, p = .14), d = .83.
In the post test, the 13 participants in the treatment group (M = 17.3, SD = 3.3) and the 7
participants in the control group (M = 17.3, SD = 2.6), still demonstrated no significance
difference in post test performance (t [15] = -0.02, p = .99), d = .01. Due to the quasi design of
the researcher due to the natural setting of the school teaching assignment and class formation,
makes it difficult to make the pre test result equal. I would argue that despite no significant
difference in both groups, there is room for discussion of evidence of possible greater
improvement in the post test results by the experimental group due to the e-lesson. Interviews
with the students indicate they found the java interactive applet easier to understand due to the
simulation that shows visually the physics of projectile motion, than teachers’ explanation (C.Y.
Yap June, personal interview, April 12, 2007).

For Instructor Lim, who is a group work classroom teacher, who is somewhat not so
(Information Technology) IT savvy, her 9 participants in the treatment group (M = 12.6, SD =
3.8) and the 9 participants in the control group (M = 14.0, SD = 4.2), demonstrated no
significance difference in pre test performance (t [16] = 0.71, p = .49), d = .35. In the post test,
the 9 participants in the treatment group (M = 15.0, SD = 3.8) and the 9 participants in the
control group (M = 15.7, SD = 2.9), still demonstrated no significance difference in post test
performance (t [15] = 0.49, p = .63), d = .24. One perspective on the result is arguable that
Instructor Lim style of facilitation and personal inclination towards use of IT did not bring out
the key aspects of the computer lesson, in the manner like Researcher Wee.
For Instructor Goh, who is somewhat more comfortable using IT in his lesson, his 16
participants in the treatment group (M = 14.4, SD = 4.2) and the 10 participants in the control
group (M = 11.1, SD = 3.4), demonstrated significance difference in pre test performance (t [22]
= -2.23, p = .04), d = .89. In the post test, the 16 participants in the treatment group (M = 17.8,
SD = 2.4) and the 10 participants in the control group (M = 15.4, SD = 2.3), continued to
demonstrate significance difference in post test performance (t [24] =-2.51, p = .02), d = 1.05.
One perspective on the result is arguable that Instructor Goh’s students in class P01 are naturally
higher ability students and the e-lesson did allow some students to continue to score higher in
post test.
2. Did the e-lesson encourage students to develop good attitudes and affections towards
learning, as compared to traditional classroom chalk and talk settings?

For the targeted 64 students, both experimental and control group, rated fairly equal
percentages in terms of test of physics related attitudes (TOPRA). Only differences greater than
15% are reported here. Firstly, it is noted that 63% of the experimental students reported ‘the
work is hard in physics lessons’, compared to 48% in the control group. Secondly, 47% of the
experimental students reported ‘I feel confused during physics lessons’, compared to 31% in the
control group. Thirdly, 34% of the experimental students reported ‘The thought of physics
makes me tense’, compared to 04% in the control group. The other 4 questions did not differ by
more than 15%, and I will treat them as equal responses in attitudes towards physics in both
groups.
In my interviews with the majority of the students in my experimental group, they
explained that they found the physics work hard because they need to ‘think’ for themselves.
Secondly, they feel more confused during lessons because they have to ‘figure out the answers
themselves’ (Y.S. Lyn Joanne, personal interview, April 12, 2007). Thirdly, they feel more
tensed during lesson because they are ‘new to the experience of learning with computer’, ‘the
computer lessons make them think more so they feel tensed’ and ‘they have lazy brains’ (C.Y.
Yap June, personal interview, April 12, 2007).
In the affective domain, the survey percentages indicate control (classroom) group are
generally
• more confident in their knowledge in physics,
• they want to know more about physics,
• they are more motivate to do the assigned work,
• they want to know more about physics,

• they feel physics is an important subject area,
• they see how physics can be applied to solve important problems and lastly
• they see important connections in physics with other subject areas.
This is puzzling survey data because the survey results are opposite to what I was
expecting.
Interviews with majority of the students in my experimental group revealed that they feel
that having a teacher, who is an expert in the subject matter to explain to them, will make them
feel more confident of the physics concepts learnt. One student mentioned, that ‘the computer
can’t talk to her like a human can’ (H.C. Foo, personal interview, April 12, 2007), this is such an
enlightening answer, for the way their feel and lower ratings in the affective domains about the
learning of physics in e-lesson. They also said that they are receivers of knowledge for 10 years
of education in the classroom setting and are used to the classroom teaching (C.Y. Yap June,
personal interview, April 12, 2007).
It is comforting to note that some affective domain survey questions did not indicate
differences of more than 15%. Survey questions like ‘help them to better understand physics
principles’, ‘helped them to remember key ideas by applying them’, ‘made physics concepts less
difficult to grasp’, ‘made physics more physics’, and lastly ‘physics can be used to solve real-
world problems’.
Though the survey indicated that the students did not develop better attitudes and
affection in the learning of physics in the e-lesson for the general population of students, the
results of the survey findings still points to the fact that the ‘e-lesson did help to some extend’
(P.Y. Chia, personal interview, April 12, 2007), to address the misconceptions and learn about
the concepts in projectile motion. This is especially meaningful because the e-lesson did help to
some extend, to attain slightly higher scores in the post test in some cases where the pedagogy of
the e-lesson was effectively experienced.
Discussion
Individual Instructor experimental and control group
One perspective on the sole result from Researcher Wee’s groups though did not show
significant difference in both groups. It is plausible that there is improvement in scores in the
post test, indicating a possibility of greater improvement in the post test results by the
experimental group due to the e-lesson, also confirmed through interviews with students. It is
somewhat unexpected that the control group scored marginally higher than my experimental
group in pre test scores, leading to approximately ‘equal’ scores in the post test.
One way to interpret pre and post test scores from Instructor Lim’s 2 groups of students
demonstrated to a certain degree that the instructor’s style of facilitation and personal inclination
towards use of IT may have lead to the ‘failure’ to bring out the key aspects of the computer
lesson, in the manner like Researcher Wee. This led me to ponder on the influence of an
instructor personal teaching and facilitation style and level of comfort in facilitating e-lesson in a
computer laboratory. This will not bring about dramatic changes in addressing misconception, so
hypothesized in my research.
One angle of looking at the sole result from Instructor Goh’s experimental group students
in class P01 is that they are naturally higher ability students, thus results showed continued
significant difference in both pre and post test result. This result can be scrutinized further by
examining the change in the significant level of p=0.04 to p=0.02 and the effect size change from
d=0.89 to d=1.05, in the pre and post test scores respectively. This lends more evidence for the
effectiveness of the e-lesson in addressing misconceptions.
Making sense of the data
My interpretation of the difficulty to demonstrate clearly how effective or ineffective the
e-lesson has been is that science of learning is like a continuous spectrum of effectiveness
ranging from highly effective to ineffective. It is not a clear cut binary data of whether they have
learnt deeply or they completely did not learn anything. The students could have learnt about one
aspect of a misconception that they have addressed, example in the case of a student Y. Y. Loh
 0 
Victoria , who wrote in her worksheet that the acceleration of earth is   m/s2, but fail to
− g 
answer correctly in question 15. This could be due to the student’s failure to interpret the
question of ‘just before landing on the ground’ and the student’s conceptual understanding being
tested in a novel way that causes the student to answer wrongly. The idea of novice knowledge
could be also applicable to her situation.
Problems with the data
Another problem in collecting reliable data from the students could also be compounded
by the language skills of the students who may be seeing this kind of questions for the first time,
making it difficult for them to make sense of the conceptual questions asked in the test paper.
Their interpretation of the conceptual questions is also limited to their experiences in the
secondary school education in physics, so that they could be answering the questions based on
their prior understanding of Physics from secondary schools. For example, secondary school
physics syllabus teaching objective of average velocity = total displacement over total time, is
commonly misunderstood by students as velocity = displacement over time, when the valid
meaning of instantaneous velocity = rate of change of displacement with time. Such instances of
misunderstanding of physics ideas, might contribute to increasing difficulty in achieving deeper
understanding in projectile motion.
Problems with the treatment short time frame
A treatment time frame of 3 hours is sufficient to experience learning by doing and
learning in classroom engaging in solving tutorial questions. Grappling with the new physics
concepts learnt may take some period of time to internalize into their existing mental schema.
Selective T-test Analysis
I will analyze Instructor Goh and my groups only, to lend more evidence to better
learning in computer based lessons. This is because in my interviews with the students and email
by a student (S.Y. Wong, personal email, February 21, 2007), indicate that the e-lesson did help
her ‘from a totally blur to can understand some parts ‘. The 29 participants in the treatment group
(M = 12.4, SD = 4.4) and the 17 participants in the control group (M = 11.8, SD = 3.7),
demonstrated no significance difference in pre test performance (t [39] = -0.52, p = .61), d = .16.
In the post test, the 29 participants in the treatment group (M = 17.6, SD = 2.8) and the 17
participants in the control group (M = 16.2, SD = 2.5), demonstrated no significance difference
in post test performance (t [44] = -1.68, p = .10), d = 0.52. This result is rather meaningful
looking at the significant level of 90 % for difference in scores and medium effect size in the
post test. This finding to some degree supports previous research (Kim, Park et al. 2001) on
learner centered activities able to allow learners to learn more deeply. Though my e-lesson is less
immersive as their 3-dimensional virtual reality, I would conclude that to make sense of the data,
survey, interviews and interaction with the students and the 2 instructors, that the e-lesson is
effective and has potential to help students learn some aspects of the physics concepts.
Analysis of the gain in post test scores
A t-test is not suitable here as low scoring pre test will result in a higher gain. Instead, a
graphical representation of the gains based on their pre test scores compared to their post test
scores is analyzed here. There are some students in the experimental group that register high
gains. The interview with the students pointed out they feel that a slightly higher score in their
post test is due to a combination of factors like effectiveness of e-lesson, their own motivation to
learn and find out through communication with the instructor (P.Y Chia and C.Y. Yap June,
personal interview, April 12, 2007).
Conclusion
An instructor can bring about effective facilitation of computer based laboratory lesson
using my treatment e-lesson scoring up to 90% significant difference in post test. The measure of
addressing misconceptions more effectively than the typical classroom pen and paper lessons
was inferred through the post test scores. There was also a necessary condition for better
facilitation of the pedagogy of the e-lesson, which required the instructor to be comfortable and
mature in embedding e-lessons. The interviews with the students allowed triangulation of the
effectiveness of the e-lesson to bring out some aspects of making the ‘learning of physics more
real life like’, instead of being just a bunch of formula coupled with teacher explanation.
It was also found that the e-lesson did not encouraged students to develop good attitudes
and affective domains about physics through the e-lesson. In fact, most of the students indicate
lower survey agreement to a number of the survey questions. This finding is out of sync with
most other related research in this area like (Kim, Park et al. 2001). Great insight was understood
after interviewing the students because it seemed the e-lesson made them work harder and think
for themselves, despite being relatively new to learning in the e-lesson methodology. Actually,
they reflected that the e-lesson is indeed helpful for them to some extend to learn about projectile
motion, through simulations and learning by doing.
As for the affective domains, the interviews with the students reveal meaningful
perspectives from the students. A lack of human touch, the computer cannot talk back to me like
a human being can and 10 years of classroom teaching and learning has made it difficult for
them to like to learn physics in the e-learning way. I am convinced that the key to better learning
is the teacher’s human touch.
Implication
How people learn is the key to sound instructional pedagogy in the learning sciences of
any discipline. Designing an e-learning environment need features that address how people learn.
The e-lesson design framework mentioned in the study can serve as a guide to enhance its
effectiveness, to promote higher levels of deep learning transfers. To succeed and to make a
positive difference, e-learning must be founded upon and driven by a keen sense of pedagogy
and an understanding of how humans learn (Bransford, Brown et al. 2000).
Results from the quasi experiment of typical classroom learning versus facilitated e-
learning on projectile motion did not convincingly give statistical validation, only a 90%
confidence level of difference was recorded on a selected group of students, of which the
researcher’s students are part of the data analyzed. It was probable that misconceptions in
projectile motion can be more readily addressed in e-learning platform, provided the learners are
motivated and are expert learners with foundations in physics that allow them to build upon or
restructure their existing mental schema. It is likely that instructors who possess the skills and
confidence (Looi, Hung et al. 2004) as well as are mature in embedding e-learning themselves,
stand a higher chance in successful facilitation of computer based laboratory lesson.
The lack of statistically positive difference in post and pre test results between the
experimental group and the control group, bring to light the importance of teacher centered
teachings, in classroom or computer laboratory. I believe all of us are truly inspired by a mastery
teacher at one point in time of our lives, not entirely learning by doing ourselves all the time, but
by learning from another human being who is a master of delivery and content.
Elliott Masie on the letter “e” in e-learning denote alternatives, like the words experience,
extended, and expanded (Rosenberg 2001), is very enlightening. Thus, the adoption of learning
by doing the e-learning educational arena has to complement existing classroom face to face
learning, not replace it.
The open source and plug and play manner to leverage on the issues of development and
maintenance e-lessons can effectively serve to provide quality online learning at a minimum
costs and time.
This purposeful “vision” for change, and the need to develop pedagogically sound
expanded learning environment, complementing face to face teaching in classroom, brings the
Singapore school education to a higher level of performance by equipping its citizens with the
skills and attitudes to face the challenges in the 21st century.

Limitation
A delayed post test, could illuminate my understanding of extend of the impacts of the e-
lessons on the experimental group, currently coupled with normal classroom discussions.
The effectiveness of the e-lesson created can be further improved. The failure of
expectation of the existing applet is still lacking in providing zero gravity exploration, which I
feel is an important aspect of confronting misconceptions in projectile motion. The interactive
physics software is a more powerful and rich environment that can illustrate this physics concept.
The design of the experiment could be improved in a true experiment setup when the
students of certain L1R5 band are given a pre test and based on their scores are paired and
subjected to the different treatments. The teacher will have to conduct lessons to both groups to
negate the instructor effect.
In a future school setup, where students of equal ability are put together in a program
where e-learning is complemented with face to face learning versus a purely traditional
classroom setting, for a longer period of time like the duration of their course. This can address
the effects of students’ culture of learning and attitudes towards learning in the self directed
manner usual in e-learning.
Future Work
These questions can help to chart future work to further this research.
• What is the appropriate balance between online and classroom learning?
• How should e-learning be used to supplement or complement classroom learning?
(Rosenberg 2001)
• How should e-learning and classroom learning components be sequenced to
promote desired learning?
• How to develop and evaluate more prototypes of e-lessons, demonstrate their
viability, so that local education arena can follow up and exploit these e-lessons?
(Looi, Hung et al. 2004)
Appendix A1: Test Questions during Pilot Phase on P07

Name: _______________________ Class: ________ Date: _____________
Concept and Problem Solving Test on Projectile motion
Note: Always assume air resistance is negligible in this test
1. Which of the following is an example of projectile motion?

A. a jet lifting off the runway B. an airplane landing
C. a bullet being fired from a gun D. a space shuttle orbiting earth
2. What is the path of a projectile?

A. a parabola B. a wavy line
C. a hyperbola D. projectiles do not follow a defined path
3. A basketball is thrown horizontally from a height of 3 m above the ground. At the same time,
another basketball is released vertically down 3 m above the ground. Which basketball will
strike the ground first?
A. basketball thrown horizontally B. basketball released vertically
C. they will hit at the same time D. not enough information to determine the answer
4. A boy on roller blades is traveling in a straight line at constant velocity. He projects a tennis
ball vertically up. Where will the tennis ball land?
A. on the boy B. in front of the boy
C. behind the boy D. not enough information to determine
5. Faster horizontal motion causes an object to fall slower

A. true B. false
C. not sure D. not enough information to determine
6. An object of greater mass will fall at a greater rate than an object of lesser mass
A. true B. false
7. The range of a projectile is

A. the time of flight B. the maximum height reached
C. the horizontal distance traveled D. the angle at which the projectile is fired
8. When hit at 35 m/s at an angle of 300, a golf ball travels 150m. What other angle will result in
the same horizontal distance?
A. 450 B. 500
0
C. 60 D. 900
9. What angle results in the greatest horizontal distance traveled by a projectile on a horizontal
level ground?
A. 150 B. 300
0
C. 45 D. 900
10. A hunter tries to shoot a monkey that drops out of a tree as the arrow is fired. Where should
the hunter aim in order to hit the monkey?
A. above the monkey B. at the monkey
C. below the monkey D. at the ground
11. The initial horizontal component velocity of a projectile is ______ its final horizontal
component velocity
A. greater than B. less than
C. equal to D. unrelated to
12. After the golf ball has attain a certain horizontal velocity after been hit by a golf club, the
horizontal component velocity of the golf ball after leaving contact with the golf club is
__________________to its final horizontal component velocity
13. The figure below shows the long jumper just after jumping off at position 1 and just
before landing at position 4 (assume the flight of a long jumper to be approximately
projectile motion). Which position best depict a position of greatest vertical velocity?
just after just before

jumping landing
A. B. C. D.
14. The long jumper leaves the ground with an initial velocity of 4.4 m/s at an angle of
37o with the horizontal. What is the magnitude of the initial velocity of the horizontal
component?
A. 3.5 m/s B. 4.4 m/s
C. 2.6 m/s D. 0.0 m/s
15. A projectile is launched at an angle from the level ground.

p1 p2
u=15 m/s
p3
30o
Which of the following is true of how the speeds of the ball at the tree points compare?
A. vp1>vp2>vp3 B. vp3>vp2>vp1
C. vp3>vp1>vp2 D. vp3=vp2=vp1
16. In a projectile motion, the _____________ is NOT constant throughout the flight of
the projectile?
A. horizontal velocity B. vertical velocity
C. acceleration D. angle at which the projectile is launched
17. In a projectile motion, the _____________ is zero throughout the flight of the
projectile?
C. horizontal acceleration D. angle at which the projectile is launched
18. In a projectile motion, the _____________ changes direction during the flight of the
projectile?
C. acceleration D. angle at which the projectile is launched
19. What is the projectile’s acceleration just after it is thrown?

A. zero m/s2 B. 4.91 m/s2 downwards
C. 9.81 m/s2 downwards D. 15.0 m/s2 downwards
20. The magnitude of the vertical component of the projectile at the highest point of the
motion is always zero.
A. true B. false
21. On a horizontal level ground, the angle of impact on the ground of the projectile is
_________ the angle of projection of the projectile.
22. On a horizontal level ground, the magnitude of the vertical component of initial
velocity is ______________ and ____________to the vertical component of the vertical
component of the impact velocity.
A. greater, same direction B. less than, opposite direction
C. equal to, opposite direction D. unrelated, different
23. A ball is thrown upward at an angle of 30 °; to the horizontal and lands on the top
edge of a building that is 20 m away. The top edge is 5.0 m above the throwing point.
How fast was the ball thrown?
A. 11 m/s B. 20 m/s
C. 16 m/s D. 5230 m/s
24. A hose lying on the ground shoots a stream of water upward at an angle of 40°; to
the horizontal. The speed of the water is 20 m/s as it leaves the hose. How high up will
it strike a wall which is 8.0 m away?
A. 5.36 m B. 8.38 m
C. 6.71 m D. 6.66 m
Suggestion to make this test truly measure misconception and problem solving skills
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your participation in this research !

Appendix A2: Optical Mark Sheet (OMS) Data Test Questions during Pilot Phase on P07 and
SPSS
S/N Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Score
ANSWER
KEY C A C A B B C C C B C C D A C B C B C A C C B A XX
1 C A B C D A C C D B C C B A C B A B C B C C B A 16
2 A A B D C B A C C C C A D C A C C A C A A A B C 10
3 A A B C A B C C B C B B C A B C C A C A A A B C 9
4 C A B C A B C C C B C C D A C B A B C D C C B A 19
5 C A C C B B C C C C C C D A C B C B C B C C B C 20
6 A A B D C B D C D C C A D A A C C A C A A A C C 9
7 A A B C C D C C C B C C B A A B C C B A C D 11
8 C C C A B B C C A B C C B B A B C A C A C A B B 16
9 C A C C B B C A B C C C A A A D C D C A C B A A 14
10 C C C A B A C C C B C C D A C B C B C A C C B A 22
11 C C C A B B C A A B C C B A D B C B C B C C 16
12 C A C A B B C C A C C C C A D B C B C A C B B A 19
13 C A C B B A C A C C C A A D B C B C A C B C A 16
14 C A C A B B C C C B C C D A C B C C C A C C B A 23
15 C A B C A B C A C C A A C C A C C B C A A C C B 10
16 C A C A B B C C B C C A A C B C C C A C C B A 21
17 C A C C B D C A B A B D C C C A C A C B C B C A 10
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24
1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1
2 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1
3 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1
4 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1
6 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1
7 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
8 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1
9 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1
10 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1
12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1
13 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1
14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1
15 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1
16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1
Filename: weelookang1.sav
Appendix A3: Alpha on Test Questions during Pilot Phase on P07
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=VAR00001 VAR00002 VAR00003 VAR00004 VAR00005 VAR00006 VAR00007
VAR00008 VAR00009 VAR00010 VAR00011 VAR00012 VAR00013 VAR00014 VAR00015
VAR00024
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL/MODEL=ALPHA.
Reliability
[DataSet0]
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 17 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 17 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all
variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.813 24
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=VAR00001 VAR00002 VAR00003 VAR00004 VAR00005 VAR00006 VAR00007
VAR00024
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL/MODEL=ALPHA
/STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE
/SUMMARY=TOTAL .
Reliability
[DataSet0]
Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 17 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 17 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all
variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.813 24
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N

VAR00001 .5294 .87447 17
VAR00002 .6471 .78591 17
VAR00003 .1765 1.01460 17
VAR00004 -.2941 .98518 17
VAR00005 .1765 1.01460 17
VAR00006 .5294 .87447 17
VAR00007 .6471 .78591 17
VAR00008 .4118 .93934 17
VAR00009 -.0588 1.02899 17
VAR00010 -.0588 1.02899 17
VAR00011 .6471 .78591 17
VAR00012 .4118 .93934 17
VAR00013 -.2941 .98518 17
VAR00014 .5294 .87447 17
VAR00015 -.1765 1.01460 17
VAR00016 .2941 .98518 17
VAR00017 .7647 .66421 17
VAR00018 -.0588 1.02899 17
VAR00019 1.0000 .00000 17
VAR00020 .2941 .98518 17
VAR00021 .4118 .93934 17
VAR00022 -.0588 1.02899 17
VAR00023 .1765 1.01460 17
VAR00024 .0588 1.02899 17
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Corrected Cronbach's

Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
VAR00001 6.1765 82.529 .609 .795
VAR00002 6.0588 97.559 -.335 .832
VAR00003 6.5294 82.265 .526 .798
VAR00004 7.0000 81.500 .590 .795
VAR00005 6.5294 82.265 .526 .798
VAR00006 6.1765 92.529 -.019 .822
VAR00007 6.0588 88.059 .291 .809
VAR00008 6.2941 90.971 .062 .820
VAR00009 6.7647 87.441 .232 .813
VAR00010 6.7647 83.441 .451 .802
VAR00011 6.0588 85.059 .503 .801
VAR00012 6.2941 79.471 .753 .787
VAR00013 7.0000 88.500 .189 .814
VAR00014 6.1765 86.029 .381 .805
VAR00015 6.8824 82.235 .527 .798
VAR00016 6.4118 78.882 .750 .786
VAR00017 5.9412 95.559 -.233 .826
VAR00018 6.7647 86.441 .286 .810
VAR00019 5.7059 92.971 .000 .815
VAR00020 6.4118 93.882 -.099 .828
VAR00021 6.2941 79.971 .721 .789
VAR00022 6.7647 81.941 .535 .797
VAR00023 6.5294 83.265 .469 .801
VAR00024 6.6471 83.118 .469 .801
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

6.7059 92.971 9.64213 24
Filename: Output1.spo from weelookang1.sav
Reliability Statistics on Question 3 and 5 which test ay = -g
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
1.000 1.000 2
Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's

Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
VAR00003 .1765 1.029 1.000 . .(a)
VAR00005 .1765 1.029 1.000 . .(a)
Reliability Statistics on Question 4, 11, 12 and 14 which test ux = vx
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.756 .764 4
Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's

Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
VAR00004 1.5882 4.882 .372 .258 .804
VAR00011 .6471 4.618 .662 .522 .650
VAR00012 .8824 3.735 .786 .642 .555
VAR00014 .7647 4.941 .454 .346 .750
Appendix B1: Pre and Post Test Questions
Name:_______________________ Class:________ Date:_____________
Misconceptions and Concept Test on Projectile motion (50 mins)
Note: Always assume air resistance is negligible in this test
1. Which of the following is an example of projectile motion?

A. a jet lifting off the runway B. an bird flying in the air
C. a bullet being fired from a gun D. a rocket flying off
2. A woman throws a projectile. A man claims he can throw the projectile always further
than the woman. Is this man telling the truth?
A. true B. false
C. I don’t know D. not enough information to determine
3. A basketball is thrown horizontally from a height of 3 m above the ground. At the

same time, another basketball is released vertically down 3 m above the ground. Which
basketball will strike the ground first?
A. basketball thrown horizontally B. basketball released vertically
C. they will hit at the same time D. not enough information to determine
4. A boy on bicycle is traveling in a straight line at constant velocity all the time. He then
projects a tennis ball vertically up. Where will the tennis ball land?
A. on the boy B. in front of the boy
C. behind the boy D. not enough information to determine
5. Faster horizontal motion causes an object to fall slower

A. true B. false
6. An object of greater mass will fall at a greater rate (greater acceleration) than an
object of lesser mass
A. true B. false
7. The range of a projectile is

A the angle at which the projectile is fired B. the maximum height reached
C. the horizontal distance traveled D. the time of flight
8. When hit at 35 m/s at an angle of 300, a golf ball travels 50m. What other angle will
result in the same horizontal distance?
A. 450 B. 350
0
C. 60 D. 500
9. What angle results in the greatest horizontal distance traveled by a projectile on a

horizontal level ground given that the initial launch velocity is constant?
A. 150 B. 300
C. 450 D. 900
10. A projectile shooting machine tries to shoot an apple that drops from rest vertically
down from a tree. Given that when the apple is dropped and at the same instant the
projectile is fired, where should the machine aim in order to hit the apple?
A. above the apple B. at the apple

C. below the apple D. not enough information to determine
11. The initial horizontal component velocity of a projectile is ______ its final horizontal
component velocity
12. After the golf ball has attained a certain horizontal velocity after been hit by a golf
club, the horizontal component velocity of the golf ball after leaving contact with the golf
club is __________________to its final horizontal component velocity
13. The figure below shows the long jumper just after jumping off at position A and just
before landing at position D (assume the flight of a long jumper to be approximately
projectile motion). Which position best depict a position of greatest vertical velocity?
just after just before

jumping landing
A. B. C. D.
14. The long jumper leaves the ground with an initial velocity of 4.4 m/s at an angle of
37o with the horizontal. What is the magnitude of horizontal component of the initial
velocity? (cos 37o = 0.797 , sin 37 o = 0.602, tan 37 o =0.753 )
A. 3.5 m/s B. 4.4 m/s
C. 2.6 m/s D. 3.3 m/s
15. What is the long jumper’s acceleration at position D ?

A. zero m/s2 B. 4.4 m/s2 downwards
C. 9.81 m/s2 downwards D. 3.5 m/s2 downwards
16. A projectile is launched at an angle from the level ground.

p1 p2
u=15 m/s
p3
30o
Which of the following is true of how the speeds of the ball at the three points compare?
A. vp1>vp2>vp3 B. vp3>vp2>vp1
C. vp3>vp1>vp2 D. vp3=vp2=vp1
17. In a projectile motion, the _____________ is NOT constant throughout the flight of
the projectile?
C. horizontal acceleration D. vertical acceleration
18. In a projectile motion, the _____________ is zero throughout the flight of the
projectile?
19. In a projectile motion, the _____________ changes direction during the flight of the
projectile?
20. The magnitude of the vertical component velocity of the projectile at the highest
point of the motion is always zero.
A. true B. false
21. On a horizontal level ground, the angle of impact on the ground of the projectile is
_________ the angle of projection of the projectile.
22. On a horizontal level ground, the magnitude of the vertical component of initial
velocity is ______________ and ____________to the vertical component of the impact
velocity.
A. greater, same direction B. less than, opposite direction
C. equal to, opposite direction D. unrelated , different
23. A ball is thrown upward at an angle of 30 ° to the horizontal and lands on the top
edge of a building that is 20 m away. The top edge is 5.0 m above the throwing point.
How fast was the ball thrown?
A. 11 m/s B. 20 m/s
C. 16 m/s D. 30 m/s E. don’t know
24. A hose lying on the ground shoots a stream of water upward at an angle of 40° to
the horizontal. The speed of the water is 20 m/s as it leaves the hose. How high up will
it strike a wall which is 8.0 m away?
A. 5.38 m B. 8.38 m
C. 6.71 m D. 6.66 m E. don’t know
Thank you for your participation in this research!

Appendix B1.2: Processed Data Pre and Post Test Questions
Pre23 Post23 Gain23 TREATMENT TEACHER CTG SEX Name

8 12 4 CLASSROOM GOH P12 tan jing hang ben
13 15 2 CLASSROOM GOH P12 F CHUA ZHEN LING
11 16 5 CLASSROOM GOH P12 F SEAH SHAOLI TERI
13 18 5 CLASSROOM GOH P12 F WANG JINGYI
12 12 0 CLASSROOM GOH P12 M CHEW YUHE BENNY
12 17 5 CLASSROOM GOH P12 M DANIEL AGUSTINUS JAUWHAN
3 13 10 CLASSROOM GOH P12 M ENG ZHEN YANG ANTHONY
15 17 2 CLASSROOM GOH P12 M LAI CHIN HONG
13 17 4 CLASSROOM GOH P12 M LAU WEI RUI
11 17 6 CLASSROOM GOH P12 M TAN HONG YI
17 18 1 CLASSROOM LIM P03 F CHOO AMELENE
16 18 2 CLASSROOM LIM P03 F IRYANI BTE AMARAN
14 18 4 CLASSROOM LIM P03 F LEE YUEN YUN SAMANTHA
10 14 4 CLASSROOM LIM P03 F QIU XINHUI KELLY
7 14 7 CLASSROOM LIM P03 F WENDELINE ONG
15 19 4 CLASSROOM LIM P03 M CHENG JIN DONG LUKE
15 15 0 CLASSROOM LIM P03 M CHIU WAI LEONG
11 10 -1 CLASSROOM LIM P03 M FOO ZHISHENG ALVIN
21 16 -5 CLASSROOM LIM P03 M GAN WEILIANG
15 15 0 CLASSROOM WEE P07 F ANITA D/O SELVAM
9 15 6 CLASSROOM WEE P07 F CHAN JIAMIN CARMEN
8 14 6 CLASSROOM WEE P07 F HAIRUNNISHA BTE NOORDIN
18 18 0 CLASSROOM WEE P07 F TAN KIAH WEE
16 19 3 CLASSROOM WEE P07 M HSU THAR
15 21 6 CLASSROOM WEE P07 M NEO HAK YONG
9 19 10 CLASSROOM WEE P07 M TEO SHUI YUAN
10 17 7 COMPUTER GOH P01 F CHRIS NG QI WEN
16 20 4 COMPUTER GOH P01 F LAU HUI PING
17 14 -3 COMPUTER GOH P01 F LI JIEMIN
6 18 12 COMPUTER GOH P01 F LIM HUI YIN
15 15 0 COMPUTER GOH P01 F LONG JIHUI
13 15 2 COMPUTER GOH P01 F MARIA ALVINA WIJAYA
18 18 0 COMPUTER GOH P01 F SU YANJIE
19 21 2 COMPUTER GOH P01 M CHOO WEI LIANG LIONEL
14 22 8 COMPUTER GOH P01 M HAN HAOGUANG
15 18 3 COMPUTER GOH P01 M LAU KIA YONG
9 16 7 COMPUTER GOH P01 M PHUA TOOL ANN
18 19 1 COMPUTER GOH P01 M SEE SOO TECK
20 19 -1 COMPUTER GOH P01 M TAN CHUN SIANG
19 20 1 COMPUTER GOH P01 M TAN LII KIN JONATHAN
9 15 6 COMPUTER GOH P01 M TAN YOK YONG

13 17 4 COMPUTER GOH P01 M YAP WEI JIE
17 19 2 COMPUTER LIM P13 F ANG ZI YA
13 11 -2 COMPUTER LIM P13 F CUMMINGS JULIE CHUA
9 11 2 COMPUTER LIM P13 F TONG HONG LI
11 12 1 COMPUTER LIM P13 F VICTORIA LOH YUAN YIN
11 17 6 COMPUTER LIM P13 M ANG WEN FANG
11 14 3 COMPUTER LIM P13 M AW JI HOE
8 13 5 COMPUTER LIM P13 M HUANG GUANLONG JETHRO
14 16 2 COMPUTER LIM P13 M HUANG LEKANG EUGENE
20 22 2 COMPUTER LIM P13 M LAM YONG SAN
7 17 10 COMPUTER WEE P05 F CHEN SHUCHAN
9 22 13 COMPUTER WEE P05 F CHIA PEI YING
4 16 12 COMPUTER WEE P05 F FOO HUI CHENG
10 18 8 COMPUTER WEE P05 F KOH YU PEI
10 12 2 COMPUTER WEE P05 F LYN YIN SIANG JOANNE
16 18 2 COMPUTER WEE P05 F MICHELLE CHEW MEI XIAN
10 18 8 COMPUTER WEE P05 F SEAH XINRUI DAPHNE
13 18 5 COMPUTER WEE P05 F WONG SER YING
6 10 4 COMPUTER WEE P05 F YAP CHOU YENG JUNE
9 17 8 COMPUTER WEE P05 M ARVIN S/O RAJENDRAM
15 18 3 COMPUTER WEE P05 M LIM JING DA
9 20 11 COMPUTER WEE P05 M NG WEI MING
12 21 9 COMPUTER WEE P05 M YAN SHI
Appendix B2: Pre and Post Test results of 23 questions of Control and Experimental Group
Group Statistics
Std. Error
VAR00003 N Mean Std. Deviation Mean
VAR00001 .00 26 12.5769 3.90049 .76495
1.00 38 12.5000 4.22189 .68488
VAR00002 .00 26 16.0385 2.59970 .50984
1.00 38 16.9474 3.17888 .51568
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for

Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
Mean 95% Confidence
Sig. (2- Differenc Std. Error Interval of the
F Sig. t df tailed) e Difference Difference
Lower Upper
VAR00001 Equal variances
assumed .705 .404 .074 62 .941 .07692 1.04232 -2.00664 2.16049
Equal variances
not assumed .075 56.580 .941 .07692 1.02675 -1.97943 2.13328
VAR00002 Equal variances
assumed .693 .408 -1.207 62 .232 -.90891 .75311 -2.41435 .59654
Equal variances
not assumed -1.253 59.934 .215 -.90891 .72517 -2.35949 .54168
Subjects Mean Standard Deviation

Treatment Condition 38 12.5 4.22189
Comparison Condition 26 12.58 3.90049
xt − xc
d=
2 2
(nt −1)st + (nc −1)sc
Pre test Cohen's d
nt + nc 0.02 negligible effect

Post test Cohen's d 0.32 small effect
xt − xc
d=
2 2
(nt −1)st + (nc −1)sc
nt + nc
Appendix B2.1: Pre and Post-Test results of 23 questions of Researcher Wee Group
Group Statistics
Std. Error
VAR00001 .00
7 12.8571 4.05909 1.53419
Pre test classroom
1.00
13 10.0000 3.39116 .94054
computer
VAR00002 .00
7 17.2857 2.62769 .99317
Post test classroom
1.00
13 17.3077 3.27579 .90854
computer
Levene's Test
for Equality of
95% Confidence
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Interval of the
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Difference
Upper Lower
VAR00001 Equal variances -.7156 6.4299
Pre test assumed 1.544 .230 1.680 18 .110 2.85714 1.70060
8 6
Equal variances -
6.8358
not assumed 1.588 10.608 .142 2.85714 1.79954 1.1215
3
4
VAR00002 Equal variances -
3.0066
post test assumed .000 .993 -.015 18 .988 -.02198 1.44157 3.0506
4
0
Equal variances -
2.8471
not assumed -.016 14.994 .987 -.02198 1.34605 2.8911
5
1

Treatment Condition 13 10 3.39116
Pre test Cohen's d 0.83 large effect

Post test Cohen's d 0.01 negligible effect
Appendix B2.2: Pre and Post-Test results of 23 questions of Instructor Lim Group
Pre Test Group Statistics
Std. Error
VAR00001 .00
9 14.0000 4.15331 1.38444
Pre test classroom
1.00
9 12.6667 3.84057 1.28019
computer
VAR00002 .00
9 15.7778 2.86259 .95420
Post test classroom
1.00
9 15.0000 3.80789 1.26930
computer
Pre Test Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
95% Confidence
Upper Lower
Pre test assumed .018 .896 .707 16 .490 1.33333 1.88562 5.33067
2.66400
Equal variances -
not assumed .707 15.903 .490 1.33333 1.88562 5.33265
2.66598
Post test assumed 1.097 .310 .490 16 .631 .77778 1.58796 4.14409
2.58854
Equal variances -
not assumed .490 14.853 .631 .77778 1.58796 4.16534
2.60978

Comparison Condition 9 14 3.84057
Pre test Cohen's d 0.35 small effect

Treatment Condition 9 15 2.86259
Post Test Cohen's d 0.24 small effect
Appendix B2.3: Pre and Post-Test results of 23 questions of Instructor Goh Group
Group Statistics
Std. Error
VAR00001 .00
10 11.1000 3.38132 1.06927
Pre test classroom
1.00
16 14.4375 4.17882 1.04470
computer
VAR00002 .00
10 15.4000 2.27058 .71802
Post test classroom
1.00
16 17.7500 2.35230 .58808
computer
Levene's Test
for Equality of
95% Confidence
Upper Lower
VAR00001 Equal
Pre test variances 1.384 .251 -2.123 24 .044 -3.33750 1.57170 -6.58134 -.09366
assumed
Equal
variances not -2.233 22.230 .036 -3.33750 1.49490 -6.43589 -.23911
assumed
VAR00002 Equal
post test variances .001 .978 -2.511 24 .019 -2.35000 .93603 -4.28186 -.41814
assumed
Equal
variances not -2.532 19.783 .020 -2.35000 .92811 -4.28737 -.41263
assumed

Pre test Cohen's d 0.89 large effect

Post test Cohen's d 1.05 large effect
Appendix B2.4: Pre and Post-Test results of 23 questions of Instructor Goh and Wee Group
Group Statistics
Std. Error
VAR00001 .00 17 11.8235 3.66120 .88797
1.00 29 12.4483 4.39632 .81638
VAR00002 .00 17 16.1765 2.53069 .61378
1.00 29 17.5517 2.75922 .51237
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
95% Confidence
Upper Lower
VAR00001 Equal -
1.9264
variances 1.955 .169 -.494 44 .624 -.62475 1.26587 3.1759
4
assumed 3
Equal -
1.8157
variances not -.518 38.685 .607 -.62475 1.20622 3.0651
0
assumed 9
VAR00002 Equal -
variances .000 .991 -1.681 44 .100 -1.37525 .81814 3.0241 .27360
assumed 0
Equal -
variances not -1.720 36.062 .094 -1.37525 .79954 2.9966 .24618
assumed 9

Pre test Cohen's d 0.16 small effect

Post test Cohen's d 0.52 medium effect
Appendix B3: Table of Control and Experimental (Target without repeat JC1 ) Grouping
Count of
students TREATMENT TEACHER
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM Total COMPUTER COMPUTER Total Grand Total
CTG GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE
P01 16 16 16
P03 9 9 9
P05 13 13 13
P07 7 7 7
P12 10 10 10
P13 9 9 9
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
Appendix B4: Chart of Pre Test score versus Post Test score of Control(Classroom) and
Experimental(Computer) of 82 students
Drop Page Fields Here
Average of POSTTESTScore
30.0
25.0
20.0
TREATMENT
15.0 CLASSROOM
COMPUTER
10.0
5.0
0.0
3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
CLASSROOM 13.0 15.0 14.0 16.7 17.0 14.5 15.0 17.8 18.0 17.9 19.0 19.0 19.3 17.0 18.5 21.0 24.0
COMPUTER 17.0 11.0 19.0 18.0 14.5 16.8 18.5 15.4 22.0 17.6 17.5 18.8 19.0 17.5 19.5 19.8 23.0 21.0
PRETESTScore
Appendix B4.1: Chart of Pre Test score versus Post Test score of Control(Classroom) and
Experimental(Computer) of 64 students
Average of Post23
25
20
15 TREATMENT
CLASSROOM
COMPUTER
10
0
3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
CLASSROOM 13 14 13 17 14 14 15 17 18 17 19 18 18 16
COMPUTER 16 14 17 13 17 16 14 21 15 19 17 19 17 19 21 21
Pre23
Appendix B5: Chart of Average Post Test score of Control (Classroom) and Experimental
(Computer) by Instructor Grouping of 82 students
Average of post-pre
14
12
10
6 TREATMENT
CLASSROOM
4 COMPUTER
0
3
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
8
9
10
12
15
16
18
20
23
5
6
8
9
10
12
14
15
16
17
20
22
23
14
17
19
21
22
11
13
19
-2 GOH LIM WEE
-4
TEACHER PRETESTScore
Appendix B5.1: Chart of Average Post Test score of Control (Classroom) and Experimental
(Computer) by Instructor Grouping of 64 students
Average of Gain23
14
12
10
Appendix C1: Test of Projectile Motion-Physics Related Attitudes (TOPRA)
For each of the following statements below, kindly indicate on your Optical Mark Sheet
(OMS) from Question 41 to 47 your response based on your feeling about the
statement. There are no correct answers.
A B C D
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree
41. I enjoy physics
42. Physics is one of my most

interesting subjects
43. I look forward to physics
lessons.
44. Studying physics is a waste of
time
45. The work is hard in physics
lessons.
46. I feel confused during physics
lessons.
47. The thought of physics makes
me tense.
Appendix C2: Affective Outcome Scale (AOS)
For each of the following statements below, kindly indicate on your Optical Mark Sheet
(OMS) from Question 48 to 59 your response based on a four-point scale, with anchor
points “Not At All” to Very Much So”.
These Projectile Motion lessons have:
A B C D
A little Quite a bit

Not At Very
All Much So
48. Helped me better understand
physics principles.
49. Made me more confident in
my knowledge of physics.
50. Helped me to remember key
ideas by applying them.
51. Made physics concepts less
difficult to grasp
52. Made physics more physics.
53. Increased my interest in the
subject
54. Made me want to know more
about physics.
55. Increased my motivation to do
the assigned work in physics.
56. Highlighted to me that physics
is an important subject area.
57. Shown me how physics can
be applied to solve important
problems
58. Shown me that physics has
important connections with
other subject areas.
59. Reminded me that physics
can be used to solve real-
world problems
Thank you for your participation in this research!

Appendix C3: For 64 students (Target students only)

A B C D
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree
I enjoy physics
Count of Name TREATMENT TEACHER
CLASSROOM COMPUTER Grand

CLASSROOM Total COMPUTER Total Total
Q41 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE
A 1 1 1 1 2
B 1 1 3 3 4
C 4 6 4 14 8 8 11 27 41
D 6 2 2 10 5 1 1 7 17
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
92% 89%
Physics is one of my most interesting subjects


A 1 1 2 2 3
B 1 1 2 3 1 2 6 8
C 7 6 3 16 6 7 10 23 39
D 3 2 2 7 5 1 1 7 14
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
88% 83%
I look forward to physics lessons.


* 1 1 1
A 1 1 1
B 1 4 1 6 6 1 3 10 16
C 7 4 3 14 7 8 8 23 37
D 2 1 3 6 2 1 3 9
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
77% 68%
Studying physics is a waste of time

A 6 3 6 15 4 4 4 12 27
B 4 6 1 11 10 5 9 24 35
C 1 1 1
D 1 1 1
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
0% 5%
The work is hard in physics lessons.


* 1 1 1
A 1 1 2 2
B 3 5 3 11 4 2 8 14 25
C 6 3 2 11 12 5 5 22 33
D 1 1 2 2 3
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
48% 63%
I feel confused during physics lessons.

A 2 1 3 1 1 2 5
B 6 6 3 15 9 4 5 18 33
C 1 2 2 5 6 4 7 17 22
D 1 1 1 3 1 1 4
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
31% 47%
The thought of physics makes me tense.


A 4 1 3 8 2 1 3 11
B 6 7 4 17 7 6 9 22 39
C 1 1 6 2 4 12 13
D 1 1 1
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
4% 34%
Helped me better understand physics principles.


B 2 2 1 5 6 2 3 11 16
C 6 5 4 15 7 5 6 18 33
D 2 2 2 6 3 2 4 9 15
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
81% 71%
Made me more confident in my knowledge of physics.


A 1 1 2 2
B 2 5 1 8 6 4 6 16 24
C 6 4 2 12 7 5 3 15 27
D 2 4 6 2 3 5 11
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
69% 53%
Helped me to remember key ideas by applying them


A 1 1 1 1 2
B 1 3 1 5 6 4 2 12 17
C 8 4 2 14 6 4 9 19 33
D 1 1 4 6 3 1 2 6 12
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
77% 66%
Made physics concepts less difficult to grasp


1 1 1
A 2 2 2
B 2 4 2 8 7 1 3 11 19
C 6 5 2 13 7 5 10 22 35
D 2 3 5 2 2 7
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
69% 63%
Made physics more physics.

A 1 1 1 1 2 3
B 4 2 1 7 7 2 2 11 18
C 4 4 1 9 7 6 9 22 31
D 2 2 4 8 2 1 3 11
E 1 1 1
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
65% 66%
Increased my interest in the subject

A 1 1 2 1 1 3
B 3 1 1 5 6 4 5 15 20
C 5 6 1 12 6 5 7 18 30
D 2 1 4 7 3 1 4 11
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
73% 58%
Made me want to know more about physics.


A 1 1 2 3 3 5
B 1 3 1 5 4 3 6 13 18
C 7 4 3 14 7 6 5 18 32
D 1 1 3 5 2 2 4 9
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
73% 58%
Increased my motivation to do the assigned work in physics.


A 1 1 3 1 4 5
B 1 4 2 7 5 6 4 15 22
C 7 2 1 10 6 3 8 17 27
D 2 2 4 8 2 2 10
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
69% 50%
Highlighted to me that physics is an important subject area


A 2 1 1 4 4
B 1 3 1 5 7 1 3 11 16
C 7 4 1 12 5 7 8 20 32
D 2 2 5 9 2 1 3 12
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
81% 61%
Shown me how physics can be applied to solve important problems


A 1 1 1
B 1 2 1 4 7 4 3 14 18
C 7 6 13 6 5 7 18 31
D 2 1 6 9 3 2 5 14
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
85% 61%
Shown me that physics has important connections with other subject areas.

A 1 1 1
B 1 4 1 6 9 3 4 16 22
C 5 4 9 5 5 7 17 26
D 4 1 6 11 2 2 4 15
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
77% 55%
Reminded me that physics can be used to solve real-world problems


A 1 1 1 1 2 3
B 1 3 1 5 6 1 1 8 13
C 6 3 1 10 4 6 8 18 28
D 3 2 5 10 5 2 3 10 20
Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64
77% 78%
References

Effectiveness of Computer Laboratory Based E-Learning Instructional Program On Addressing Misconceptions in Projectile Motion

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Effectiveness of Computer Laboratory Based E-Learning Instructional Program On Addressing Misconceptions in Projectile Motion

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

E-learning in Physics 1

Running head: E-LEARNING INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM

Effectiveness of Computer Laboratory Based E-Learning Instructional Program on Addressing

Misconceptions in Projectile Motion

Wee Loo Kang

National Institute of Education (NIE) an institute of Nanyang Technological University (NTU)

Dr. Cheung Wing Sum

Dr. Hew Khe Foon

transformative e-learning instructional design computer-based lessons do better address

misconceptions from learning by doing, using physics topic projectile motion.

depends also on the facilitator’s level of maturity in facilitating e-lessons.

that make the pedagogy of e-learning work.

cognitive processes in learning by doing. It is recommend that time be devoted to e-lessons

face classroom teaching and computer based learning environment.

Although it is somewhat of a cliché that computers are revolutionizing education, it is

by giving full credits to original authors and websites.

objectives of other educators.

e-learning principles and learning strategies, to bring interactive e-learning to a Singapore

learning strategies with technology as partner, to engage the learners.

Traditional classroom teaching without the use of computer simulation tends to be

difficult in addressing misconceptions in projectile motion. Computer based laboratory e-lessons

enhance and complement the existing Singapore schools physics education.

the impact of e-learning instructional design and computer-based lessons, on addressing

misconception from learning by doing, in physics topic projectile motion.

classroom, pen and paper lessons?

learning, as compared to traditional classroom ‘chalk and talk’ settings?

Scope and Objectives

To determine the impact of addressing misconceptions from computer based e-learning

Key definition of concepts

Misconceptions in projectile motion can be defined as common sense belief in students

These misconceptions in projectile motion are not arbitrary or trivial misunderstanding

intellectuals in pre-Newtonian times.

Key characteristics of concepts and misconceptions

Misconceptions and scientific concepts in projectile motion can be roughly characterized

understandings of projectile motion.

(Hallouna and Hestenes 1985)

The list of examples given here are not exhaustive.

and Gunstone 1999).

possess none at all (Vosniadou 1994).

be classified as Naive physics (Hecht and Bertamini 2000).

Newtonian Theories of Motion

the motion of a projectile.

Synthesis of previous findings

addressing of misconceptions. A few studies have attempted to change student misconceptions

structure (Tao and Gunstone 1999).

projectile motion in a variety of familiar contexts (Prescott 2004).

Use of technology in Education

pedagogically sound, flavored with learning by doing .

mathematical models. The question of whether to use a simulation as an illustration or to have

individual students’ level of IT competency and motivation to learn deeply.

(Titus, Martin et al. 1998).

and Wieme 2004).

cannot be visualized or made concrete, or it is not feasible or possible to demonstrate them in a

practical way in the classroom.

Technology allows for experimentation on phenomena such as free-fall due to gravity,

students to understand the problem exercise (Belloni, Christian et al. 2006).

Homework is a tremendous motivator for students, and provides motivation to study

(Titus, Martin et al. 1998)

Allowing the learner to work independently or collaboratively either in school or at home

well-designed computer-aided educational system compared to other traditional learning tools,

such as textbooks. (Greene 2001)

Problems when using computer as partner

file a help request to the school Technical Assistant (TA).