Frank Angelo Pacala, Rezy Mendaño

Comparing The Acceleration Due to Gravity using Traditional Method Versus Tracker Video Analysis: Experiments in A Simple Pendulum

Introduction

Comparing the acceleration due to gravity using traditional method versus tracker video analysis: experiments in a simple pendulum. Compare acceleration due to gravity (g) using a simple pendulum: traditional method vs. Tracker video analysis. Study found traditional more accurate, but both close to 9.81 m/s².

Abstract

This study used a simple pendulum to compare the accuracy and precision of the traditional method and Tracker video analysis in determining the acceleration due to gravity (g). The experiment involved two groups of participants: science teachers in the Philippines, who used the traditional method, and high school students in Uzbekistan, who employed video analysis. Both groups conducted multiple trials by measuring the period of the swinging pendulum. Data were collected by manually recording the pendulum’s motion with a stopwatch or through video analysis software, and the resulting periods were used to calculate g. The data were analyzed by comparing the measured values of g from both methods and assessing the precision and accuracy of each. The results indicated that the traditional method provided more accurate g measurements than the video analysis method, though both methods yielded results close to the accepted average value of 9.81 ms−2. The study suggests that both methods are feasible, but user experience and familiarity with the tools significantly impact the results.

Review

This study addresses a pertinent question regarding the efficacy of different experimental techniques in fundamental physics education, specifically the determination of the acceleration due to gravity (g) using a simple pendulum. Comparing traditional stopwatch-based measurements against modern Tracker video analysis is valuable, particularly as educational institutions increasingly adopt digital tools. The experimental design, which involved distinct groups—science teachers in the Philippines for the traditional method and high school students in Uzbekistan for video analysis—introduces an interesting real-world context and potential confounding variables related to user experience and skill level, which the authors acknowledge. The central finding, that the traditional method provided more accurate 'g' measurements despite both methods yielding values close to the accepted 9.81 ms⁻², is counter-intuitive and warrants deeper exploration. While the abstract states both methods were close, the higher accuracy of the traditional method challenges assumptions about the inherent precision benefits of video analysis in this context. The mention of user experience and familiarity as significant impacts is crucial, but the experimental design inherently confounds method with user group (teachers vs. students, different countries/backgrounds). It would be important for the full paper to meticulously detail how accuracy and precision were quantified and compared, and to what extent the varying user groups might have influenced the outcomes beyond just "familiarity with tools." For instance, potential differences in instructional quality, prior physics knowledge, or experimental setup variations between the two sites could play a role. Overall, this study offers valuable insights into pedagogical approaches for determining 'g'. Its strength lies in its practical comparison of two widely used methods and its acknowledgment of human factors in experimental outcomes. However, the distinct user groups in different geographical locations represent a significant limitation in attributing observed differences purely to the method itself, rather than to the skill sets or training of the participants. Future research could control for these user-related variables more rigorously, perhaps by having the same group of participants perform both methods, or by comparing groups with more equivalent training and background. Despite this, the study successfully highlights that while new technologies like video analysis are feasible, the fundamental understanding and careful execution of experiments remain paramount, often intertwined with the human element.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.