PAPER

Phys. Educ. 55 (2020) 055010 (9pp) iopscience.org/ped

Understanding the effect

of rolling friction in the
inclined track experiment
K Maslova1, V L B de Jesus1 and D G G Sasaki2
1
Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Rio de Janeiro IFRJ/Campus
Nilópolis, Nilópolis, Brazil
2
Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica Celso Suckow da Fonseca
CEFET-RJ/Campus Maracanã, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

E-mail: katherinedefante@gmail.com, vitor.jesus@ifrj.edu.br and daniel.sasaki@cefet-rj.br

Abstract
In general, undergraduate experimental physics laboratories do not usually
have experiments designed to address rolling friction and to measure the
value of the rolling friction coefficient. This work explores an experiment,
which has the potential to arouse students’ curiosity about rolling friction by
addressing a counterintuitive aspect of the behavior of a sphere that rolls up,
stops and then rolls down on an inclined track. In fact, due to the difference in
the net static friction in the upward and downward movements caused by the
rolling friction term, the sphere’s acceleration when rolling upward is higher
than when rolling downward. This difference, which had been predicted
theoretically, was easily demonstrated graphically by video analysis, using
both rubber and mouse balls. For two steel balls, this difference was more
subtle, but it was still possible to detect it numerically. The experimental
setup employed typical laboratory equipment and the free video analysis
software Tracker to collect position and velocity data. The rolling friction
coefficient was calculated with good precision by means of an angular
coefficient of a fitted first-degree function involving appropriate variables.

Keywords: physics teaching, rolling friction, video analysis, tracker

1. Introduction is predominantly a neglected subject in the most

In general, undergraduate experimental physics
laboratories do not usually have experiments in
their collections designed to address rolling fric-
tion and to measure the value of the rolling friction
coefficient. We believe that this widespread gap is
due to two reasons: the great inaccuracy of the res-
ults (because the coefficient of rolling friction is
much smaller than static and kinetic coefficients)
[1] and the fact that the concept of rolling friction
popular university textbooks for general physics
courses. Indeed, three of the best–known text-
books do not mention this concept [2–4]. Three
further textbooks comment on rolling friction, but
only in a very short and superficial section [5–7].
In the experimental environment, this scen-
ario is changing with the progressive introduction
of video analysis as an effective and efficient
resource to track movements and obtain large

1361-6552/20/055010+9$33.00 1 © 2020 IOP Publishing Ltd

K Maslova et al
amounts of kinematics data and the associated
graphs [8, 9]. However, there are as yet only a
few papers available that have employed this tech-
nique to study rolling friction, all of them using
the free video analysis software Tracker to col-
lect position and velocity data. For instance, in
the first paper using this technique, the authors
performed two experiments on an eight degrees
inclined plane: (i) a hard iron cylinder was rolled
down an inclined soft surface made from poly-
urethane foam on a wooden board and (ii) a soft
foam cylinder was rolled down an inclined hard
wood surface [10]. In three other related papers,
the same author set up and analyzed four exper-
iments: (i) three steel ball bearings and a billiard
ball with a displaced center of mass rolling in a
spiral trajectory on a polished granite surface [11],
(ii) seven balls of different materials rolled down
a very low incline (0.75–2.8◦ ) made of hard wood
[12], (iii) different diameter steel balls rolled hori-
zontally around a seven mm wide circular groove
cut to a depth of five mm in a stainless steel plate
and (iv) the same steel balls oscillated up and
down on a large concave lens [13].
In this context, a natural question is: what ori-
ginal contribution could a paper about the rolling
friction of a sphere rolling on an incline make to
the state of the art? This depends on the perspect-
ive that this work presents from the pedagogical
point of view. If the experiment is limited only to
offering another measurement of the rolling fric-
tion coefficient for a sphere using the video ana-
lysis technique, this would be redundant.
However, in this paper we revisit this theme
from a point of view which has the potential to
arouse students’ curiosity, by addressing a coun-
terintuitive aspect of the behavior of a sphere that
rolls up, stops and then rolls down on an inclined
track: the net static friction is different when the
sphere is rolling upward compared to when it
is rolling downward [14]; the sphere’s acceler-
ation when rolling upward is higher than when
rolling downward. Such a phenomenon does not
occur if the sphere and inclined plane are perfectly
rigid surfaces, and therefore rolling friction is not
present. In general, this variation the magnitude
of the net static friction is not expected by the stu-
dents, because they consider rolling upward and
downward to be symmetric situations. Neverthe-
less, this subtle difference in the net static friction
September 2020
W
f j
N
d i
Figure 1. Forces acting on a real solid sphere rolling
up and down on an inclined plane (deformation
has been exaggerated to highlight the normal force
displacement).
of the different upward and downward accelera-
tions of the sphere is brought about due to the
rolling friction term [15]. It is predicted by an
appropriate theory and can be easily detected by
video analysis.
Another factor that confirms the originality of
this work is the method used to obtain the rolling
friction coefficient. In general, papers work out
the value of this coefficient from a single angle
measurement or make a few repeated measure-
ments with some angles and take an arithmetic
mean. We adopted a more systematic and pre-
cise approach, that encompasses acceleration data
from both upward and downward rolling, and
combines it in a single graph of one fractional
quantity versus the value of the tangent for dif-
ferent angles of incline. We then determine the
best-fitting first-degree function, whose inverse of
the angular coefficient furnishes the rolling fric-
tion coefficient multiplied by a known constant.
2. Theoretical model
In a rolling motion (with or without sliding) of a
perfectly rigid cylinder or sphere on a perfectly
rigid smooth surface, the weight force and the
normal support reaction force (the normal force)
lie on the same line passing through the cen-
ter of mass (CM) of the rolling body. However,
the most simple and common phenomenological
model used to explain why the velocity of an
object describing a pure roll on a horizontal plane
decreases and eventually stops, demands a torque
2 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 5 5 0 1 0
 Understanding the effect of rolling friction in the inclined track experiment

j N N
β
β Ref
i R

Figure 2. Lateral and front view of the sphere on an inclined track.

in the opposite direction to the rotational move- whereas the negative sign corresponds to rolling
ment [10–16]. This torque must necessarily be upward, because the normal force is shifted to the
caused by one component of the reaction force left from the CM.
acting orthogonallly to the surface and not neces- After some algebraic manipulation, we
sarily directed to the CM. This implies that the obtain:
application point of the reaction force is shifted
γmg mg d ()
a distance d in the direction of the translational f=− sinθ ∓ cosθ î (4)
γ +1 γ +1 R
motion.
In the case of a sphere rolling on an inclined g g d ()
plane (see figure 1), the reaction force applied by a= sinθ ∓ cosθ î . (5)
γ +1 γ +1 R
the surface is shifted, and can be decomposed into
two components: a component parallel to the sur- In the second term of equation (4), the negat-
face (the effective static friction) and a component ive sign corresponds to the sphere rolling down-
orthogonal to the surface (the normal force). ward, therefore in this case the magnitude of
The equations of the motion of the sphere are: the effective friction force is higher and thus the
acceleration magnitude is lower. Therefore, in the
() second term of equation (5), the negative sign also
mgsinθ − f = ma î , (1) corresponds to the sphere rolling downward.
If, instead of rolling on an inclined plane, the
() sphere rolls on an inclined track, the sphere will
N = mgcosθ ĵ , (2) be positioned on the rim of the groove and there
will be two tilted and symmetric normal forces,
a ( ) one on each side of the sphere, as illustrated in
− fR ± Nd = − I k̂ , (3) figure 2. These two normal forces will have the
R
same magnitude, which can be calculated using
where f is the effective static friction, d is the nor- the equilibrium condition and the geometry:
mal force shifted from the CM, R is the sphere’s
radius and I = γmR2 is the moment of inertia (the 2N1 cos β = mgcosθ (6)
sphere has γ = 2/5).
Note: in equation (3), the signs of the effect- mg R
ive static friction torque and the net torque are N1 = N2 = cosθ , (7)
2 Ref
always negative, both for upward and downward
rolling movements of the sphere. However, in the R
where cos β = Ref , R is the sphere radius, Ref =
second term of equation (3), a positive sign corres- √
R2 − L4 is the effective radius and L is the
2
ponds to the sphere rolling downward, because the
normal force is shifted to the right from the CM, groove’s width.

September 2020 3 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 5 5 0 1 0
K Maslova et al
Again, due to deformation of the sphere, the if the limits k → 1 and d → 0 are taken simul-
line of action of these two normal forces is shif- taneously in equation (12), then only one term
ted a distance d in the direction of the translational remains, that for the acceleration magnitude due
motion. However, on the inclined track the normal to perfectly rigid surfaces, addressed in the stand-
forces are tilted by an angle β, so that only ( ) the ard undergraduate textbooks.
components of both normal forces in the ĵ dir- A characteristic of all pure rolling phenomen-
ological models is the experimentally confirmed
ection apply torque to the sphere. The magnitude
feature that the magnitude of the friction force
of the net torque is:
(or its torque) is proportional to the magnitude of
tnet = 2N1 cosβ d = mgcosθ d. (8) the normal force. This proportionality coefficient
is presumed to be constant, therefore it does not
Taking these modifications into account, the depend on the relative velocity of the CM and the
movement’s equations become: surface, nor the angle between the weight and the
() surface [10–16]. Therefore, it is used to define the
mgsinθ − f = ma î (9) friction coefficient as the ratio of the two friction
terms versus the normal force. Two friction coeffi-
cients are defined: the first is the ratio between the
a ( ) static friction term and the normal force, and the
− fRef ± mgcosθd = − I k̂ . (10) second one is the ratio between the rolling friction
Ref
term and the normal force:
In the second term of equation (10), the positive γ
sign corresponds to the sphere rolling downward, µs = 2 k2 tanθ (13)
k γ +1
whereas the negative sign corresponds to rolling
upward. Applying the same algebraic manipula-
tion, we get: k d
µr = . (14)
() k2 γ +1 R
γmg 2 mg d
f=− 2 k sinθ ∓ 2 k cosθ î
k γ +1 k γ +1 R The static friction coefficient itself depends
(11) on the inclined plane angle but the rolling fric-
tion coefficient does not depend on this angle. It
g g d () is conceivable that distance d could itself depend
a= sinθ ∓ k cosθ î , (12) on the angle and the velocity of the CM and, con-
k2 γ + 1 k2 γ + 1 R
sequently the rolling friction coefficient, as well.
where k = RRef is a non-dimensional constant. However, most authors assume a priori that for
small angles and velocities, the rolling friction
In the second term of equations (11)–(12),
coefficient is constant [10–16]. These assump-
the negative sign corresponds to the sphere rolling
tions can be confirmed by defining the variable Z:
downward and the positive sign corresponds to the
sphere rolling upward.
The effective static friction in equation (11) aup + adown
Z= . (15)
is composed of the static friction itself, which aup − adown
depends on the sine of the angle of inclination (the
first term) and the rolling friction that depends on Substituting equation (14) in equation (12) and
the deformation of the sphere and the cosine of the calculating equation (15), we obtain the fol-
angle of inclination (the second term). lowing simple relation which can be tested
As a coherence test for the mathematical experimentally:
models, if the limit k → 1 is taken in equation 1
(12) for the acceleration magnitude on an inclined Z= tanθ. (16)
µr (k2 γ + 1)
track, it then reduces to equation (5) for the accel-
eration magnitude on an inclined smooth plane, It should be noted that equation (16) is valid
because there is no longer a groove. In addition, only in pure rolling up to tan θmax . Furthermore,

September 2020 4 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 5 5 0 1 0
 Understanding the effect of rolling friction in the inclined track experiment

Figure 4. Experimental apparatus. The photo at the

upper right shows the inclined track (front view) with
a 0.0047 m wide groove.

Table 1. The effective radius and parameter k for all

Figure 3. The balls used in this experiment: (a) a rub- balls.
ber ball of 0.0224 m diameter, (b) a small steel ball of Ball R (m) L (m) Ref (m) k = R/Ref
0.0160 m diameter, (c) a mouse ball of 0.0221 m dia-
meter and (d) a steel ball of 0.0181 m diameter. (a) 0.0112 0.0047 0.01095 1.0228
(b) 0.0080 0.0047 0.00765 1.0462
if the experimental data plot for a graph Z × tan θ (c) 0.01105 0.0047 0.010797 1.0234
(d) 0.00905 0.0047 0.008739 1.0355
provides a linear fit for small angles and velocit-
ies, it corroborates the assumptions of the phe-
nomenological model that µr and d are constants,
in these conditions. Additional deformations are angle of tilt of the track. A ruler one meter long
not expected to be caused at low velocities, but a was placed under the track to serve as a calibra-
moderate dependence of the rolling friction coef- tion for the real dimensions in the experiment.
ficient on velocity is observable for significantly In order to calculate the rolling friction coef-
higher magnitudes [10]. ficient of the balls with the aluminum track, it is
necessary to obtain the effective radius Ref and the
parameter k. Both are presented in table 1.
3. Experimental setup The two horizontal iron rods were movable,
To perform the experiment, four different balls so that the aluminum track could be continuously
were used (figure 3): (a) a rubber ball of 0.0224 m tilted. Launches were performed for seven angles
diameter, (b) a small steel ball of 0.0160 m dia- of tilt.
meter, (c) a mouse ball of 0.0221 m diameter and For each angle, all the balls were initially
(d) a steel ball of 0.0181 m diameter. rolled upward. The upward and downward move-
An aluminum track of 1.30 m with a groove ments were filmed at 120 fps using an iPhone
width L = 0.0047 m was mounted on a bench 8 in a parallel plane to the one containing the
using four iron rods, as presented in figure 4. A aluminum track. In order to avoid launching the
long pendulum was mounted close to the green ball up the track by hand, a long ‘V’-profile car-
background, which provided the best color con- ton was used. It is important to avoid launching
trast for video analysis. This pendulum provided the ball upwards by hand, because in most cases
the vertical dimension, helping to measure the the ball slips on the first part of the track. It was

September 2020 5 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 5 5 0 1 0
K Maslova et al

Figure 5. Parabolic fits for position versus time using the rubber ball at the lowest tilted track angle of 3.6◦ , graphs
(a) and (b). The graphs presented in (c) and (d) correspond to the highest tilted track angle of 15.7◦ .

Table 2. Anomalous points. using the free software Tracker. The upward and
s x t—acceleration downward accelerations were obtained in two
Case Angle obtained from parabolic fit ways, from the parabolic fit of the position versus
time graph and from the linear fit of the velo-
Ball ⊖ (degree) ∆a (ms−2 ) δa (ms−2 ) δa/∆a (%) city versus time graph. The experimental upward
(b) 15.8 0.021 0.008 38 and downward acceleration values were used to
(c) 15.7 0.146 0.005 3.4 obtain the Z-value using equation (15) and then
(d) 13.4 0.015 0.006 40
the rolling friction coefficient could be be calcu-
(d) 15.8 −0.01 0.02 −200
lated with good precision by means of a linear fit
of the angular coefficient and equation (16).
Table 3. The rolling friction coefficient for each ball in
contact with the aluminum track.
4. Analysis of the results
s x t—acceleration obtained from parabolic fit
Both the upward and downward accelerations can
Ball Slope δ slope µr δµr be obtained by video analysis using the parabolic
(a) 68 1 0.0104 0.0002 fit of the position versus time graph.
(b) 262 18 0.0027 0.0002 In the case of the rubber and mouse balls, the
(c) 80 1 0.0088 0.0002 differences between the upward and downward
(d) 355 35 0.0020 0.0002 accelerations are more pronounced and it is pos-
sible to visualize this difference directly from the
experimental data graphs. As an example, figures
therefore decided to let the ball gently roll down 5(a) and (b) present the parabolic fits (thin pink
the ‘V’ profile carton while its end was placed lines) for the rubber ball at the lowest tilted track
just above the aluminum groove. This procedure angle of 3.6◦ and figures 5(c) and (d) present the
allowed a smooth transition from the downward parabolic fit for the highest angle of tilt of 15.7◦ .
rolling movement in the ‘V’-profile carton to the It is important to note in figure 5(a) that
upward rolling movement in the track groove. the parabolic fit (thin pink line) corresponds to
The video analysis of the ball’s upward the upward rolling movement of the rubber ball
and downward rolling movement was performed (yellow experimental data on the left side of the

September 2020 6 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 5 5 0 1 0
 Understanding the effect of rolling friction in the inclined track experiment

20 200
Rubber ball Small Steel Ball
(a) (b)
18
175
Experimental data
16 Experimental data
Fit
Fit 150
14 Equation y = a+b*x
Adj. R-Squar 0.98856 0.96857
125
12 Value Standard Error
D Intercept –4.07918 1.41749
10 100 D Slope 262.10894 17.83888
Z

Z
8
Equation y = a+b*x 75
Adj. R-Squar 0.99071 0.99134
6
Value Standard Error
50
D Intercept 0.57199 0.06805
4
D Slope 68.0930 1.07873
25
2

0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
tan (theta) tan (theta)

35 (c) 250 (d)

Mouse ball Steel ball

30 Equation y = a+b*x Equation y = a+b*x

Adj. R-Squar 0.99601 0.9923 200 Adj. R-Squar 0.97828 0.97527
Value Standard Error
1.03345 0.18836 Value Standard Error
25 D D
D 79.69943 1.40596 D Intercept 0.67372 3.58833
D Slope 355.00608 35.28914
150
20
Z

15
100 Experimental data
Fit
10 Experimental data
Fit
50
5

0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
tan (theta) tan (theta)

Figure 6. Graphs of the Z-value versus tanθ for (a) rubber ball, (b) small steel ball, (c) mouse ball and (d) steel
ball.

graph). However, this parabolic fit lies above
the red experimental data on the right side of
the graph, which corresponds to the downward
rolling movement. Therefore, by a simple visual
inspection, it is clear that the acceleration when
rolling upwards is higher than the acceleration
when rolling downwards. Conversely, in figure
5(b) the parabolic fit (thin pink line) corresponds
to the downward rolling movement (yellow exper-
imental data on the right side of the graph) for the
lowest angle of tilt. This parabolic fit lies below
the red experimental data on the left side of the
graph, which corresponds to the upward rolling
movement.
An interesting observation is that for the
highest angle of tilt, the parabolic fits are closer to
the experimental data on both sides (figures 5(c)
and (d)) than for the lowest angle of tilt (figures
5(a) and (b)).
The Z-value (equation (16)) is more con-
venient for calculating the rolling friction coef-
ficient because it depends on the tangent of the
angles. Since the tangent function has a high rate
of increase, even for small angles the Z-value
provides linear graphs (Z versus tanθ) with good
resolution and dispersion, providing accurate res-
ults for the upward and downward accelerations.
One can obtain the graph of Z-value versus
tanθ for all four cases (figure 6).
The anomalous points observed in figures
6(b)–(d) are probably due to the precision of the
measurement of the experimental position data
and therefore may have no relation to the slipping
phenomenon.

September 2020 7 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 5 5 0 1 0
K Maslova et al
These anomalies may be explained by the fol-
lowing reasoning: as the difference in acceleration
depends on the angle of tilt, a bigger angle implies
a smaller cosine and therefore a smaller difference
between the accelerations. This is shown by equa-
tion (12):
2g d
∆a = aup − adown = k cosθ.
k2 γ+1 R
Therefore, when the values of the upward and
downward accelerations are closer, their differ-
ence approaches the order of magnitude of their
own uncertainty and is no longer a reliable value.
This problem can cause a spuriously very high
Z-value if its denominator is a smaller number
than it should be.
As an example, let us inspect case (b),
a small steel ball, at 15.8◦ of tilt. The accel-
eration difference is ∆a = 1.927 − 1.906 =
0.021 ms−2 . If one compares this with the estim-
ated uncertainty of δa = 0.008 ms−2 , the ratio
δa/∆a ~ 0.008/0.021 ~ 38%. Comparing this
with the same case for the smaller angle of tilt
of 3.7◦ gives ∆a = 0.477 − 0.408 = 0.069 ms−2 ,
and a ratio δa/∆a ~ 0.002/0.069 ~ 3%. Table 2
summarizes the view of all anomalous points.
From equation (16) the angular coefficient is
given by µr (k21γ+1) for each ball. The rolling fric-
tion coefficient can be obtained from the linear fit
of each graph presented in figure 6. Each value
and its uncertainty are shown in table 3.
5. Conclusions
The video analysis proved to be an efficient and
easy technique for obtaining accurate position
measurements and the respective velocities of dif-
ferent balls rolling upward and downward without
sliding on a tilted track, for small angles (less
than 15◦ ). Furthermore, the Tracker tool for fitting
curves to experimental data, namely in the posi-
tion versus time and velocity versus time graphs,
provides a very pedagogical visualization of the
difference between the upward and downward
accelerations, which is an unexpected effect due
to the rolling friction phenomenon.
The magnitude of this difference is more pro-
nounced in the case of the rubber ball, because this
September 2020
material has a rolling friction coefficient approx-
imately one order of magnitude higher than steel
(all balls were rolling on an aluminum track).
However, even for the two steel balls, which have
rolling friction coefficients much smaller than
the rubber ball, it is possible to detect a reliable
value for the difference between the values of the
upward and downward accelerations for angles
lower than 10◦ .
The definition of the variable Z, which
includes acceleration data for upward and down-
ward rolling in a single expression, provides a
more systematic, elegant and precise approach to
determining the rolling friction coefficient, com-
pared with other procedures, such as the calcula-
tion of the average of several individual rolling
friction coefficients, one for each angle. In fact,
the graph of Z versus tanθ yields a well-adjusted
first-degree function, whose fitting parameters
provide the rolling friction coefficient and its
uncertainty simultaneously.
ORCID iDs
K Maslova  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9276-
1218
V L B de Jesus  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
6995-8378
D G G Sasaki  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
0087-6809
Received 28 March 2020, in final form 20 April 2020
Accepted for publication 11 May 2020
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ab9217
References
[1] Krasner S 1992 Why wheels work: a second
version Phys. Teach. 30 212
[2] Halliday D, Resnick R and Walker J 2013
Fundamentals of Physics 10th edn
(Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley)
[3] Tipler P A and Mosca G 2007 Physics for
Scientists and Engineers 6th edn (San
Francisco, CA: Freeman)
[4] Serway R A and Vuille C 2014 College Physics
10th edn (Boston, MA: Brooks Cole)
[5] Young H D and Freedman R A 2014 University
Physics 13th edn (Boston, MA: Pearson)
[6] Katz D M 2015 Physics for Scientists and
Engineers; Foundations and Connections 1st
edn (Boston, MA: Cengage Learning)
8 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 5 5 0 1 0
 Understanding the effect of rolling friction in the inclined track experiment
[7] Knight R D 2016 Physics for Scientists and
Engineers: A Strategic Approach with
Modern Physics 4th edn (Boston, MA:
Pearson)
[8] Brown D 2019 Tracker video analysis and
modeling tool (http://physlets.org/tracker/)
(Accessed: February 2020)
[9] de Jesus V L B 2017 Experiments and Video
Analysis in Classical Mechanics, Series:
Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics
(Cham: Springer)
[10] Vozdecky L, Bartos J and Musilova J 2014
Rolling friction-models and experiment. an
undergraduate student project Eur. J. Phys.
35 055004
[11] Cross R 2015 Simple measurements of rolling
friction and deformation when µr < 0.001
Eur. J. Phys. 36 065018
[12] Cross R 2015 Rolling to a stop down
an inclined plane Eur. J. Phys.
36 065047
[13] Cross R 2016 Coulomb’s law for rolling friction
Am. J. Phys. 84 221
[14] Mungan C E 2012 Rolling friction on a
wheeled laboratory cart Phys. Educ.
47 288–92
[15] Domenech A, Domenech T and Cebrian J 1987
Introduction to the study of rolling friction
Am. J. Phys. 55 231–5
[16] Minkin L 2018 Coefficient of rolling
friction—lab experiment Am. J. Phys.
86 77–78
September 2020
K Maslova is an undergraduate
student attending the last semester
at Federal Institute of Education,
Science and Technology of Rio de
Janeiro (IFRJ, campus Nilópolis).
V L B de Jesus has a PhD in
physics and is Professor at Federal
Institute of Education, Science and
Technology of Rio de Janeiro (IFRJ,
campus Nilópolis). He teaches in
undergraduate courses, Education
Degree Program in Physics as well
as in the Master’s Degree Program
in Science Education (PROPEC)
at IFRJ. He works both in atomic
physics and physics teaching.
D G G Sasaki has a PhD in physics
and is Professor at Federal Center
of Technological Education Celso
Suckow da Fonseca (CEFET-RJ,
campus Maracanã). Daniel teaches in
upper secondary vocational classes as
well as in the Master’s and Doctoral
Programs in Science and Technology (PPCTE) of CEFET-
RJ. His current research lines are active learning method-
ologies and techniques in physics teaching.
9 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 5 5 0 1 0