Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Challenges of designing and carrying out laboratory experiments about Newton's second law

The case of Korean gifted students

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Experiment is understood as a core activity in science education as well as science in general. Despite many efforts to improve science education in the laboratory, a cookbook style of verification experiments often dominate school science. In this study, we conducted an open laboratory activity that provided students with an opportunity to think about Newton’s second law reflectively. Specifically, students were encouraged to conduct Newton’s second law experiment in a way that was teacher-guided and then they used the same topic to design and conduct their own experiment. As a result, the students demonstrated their challenges in using various creative experimental methods. For example, some students installed a pulley and weight on both sides of a rail to keep the mass and friction coefficient of the cart constant because they thought the friction of the cart to be the main cause of errors. Other students investigated the bidirectional movement of the cart, finding ways to determine the friction and the small tilted angle of rail at the same time. Through the open laboratory activity conducted in this study, students seemed to show understanding of the nature of science. They realized that there is a difference between the law and reality and that even a simple experiment contains many errors and a lot of complex elements. Students also seemed to reflect on what attitude they should take when they experiment in the future. They considered the importance of experimental design and the meaning of experimental processes and good experiments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J. L. (1990). Newton’s first two laws of motion are not definitions. American Journal of Physics, 58(12), 1192–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ann Haefner, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary teachers’ developing understandings of scientific inquiry and science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1653–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B., Lundberg, B., & Tibell, L. (2003). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 351–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchini, J. A., & Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to prospective elementary teachers: a tale of two researchers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 177–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: a quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: the contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1373–1388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bretz, S. L. (2019). Evidence for the importance of laboratory courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(2), 193–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buck, L. B., Bretz, S. L., & Towns, M. H. (2008). Characterizing the level of inquiry in the undergraduate laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(1), 52–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullough Jr., R. V., & Baughman, K. (1997). First-year teacher eight years later: an inquiry into teacher development. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byun, T., & Lee, G. (2014). Why students still can’t solve physics problems after solving over 2000 problems. American Journal of Physics, 89(9), 906–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassini, A., & Levinas, M. L. (2019). Einstein’s reinterpretation of the Fizeau experiment: how it turned out to be crucial for special relativity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 65, 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, S., Williamson, V. M., McCann, K., & Peck, M. L. (2009). Surveying students’ attitudes and perceptions toward guided-inquiry and open-inquiry laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(12), 1427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coelho, R. L. (2012). On the definition of mass in mechanics: why is it so difficult? The Physics Teacher, 50(5), 304–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coletta, V. P., Bernardin, J., Pascoe, D., & Hoemke, A. (2019). Feeling Newton’s second law. Physics Teacher, 57(2), 88–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 661–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etkina, E., Karelina, A., Ruibal-Villasenor, M., Rosengrant, D., Jordan, R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2010). Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: learning in introductory physics laboratories. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 54–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etkina, E., Murthy, S., & Zou, X. (2006). Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design. American Journal of Physics, 74(11), 979–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fay, M. E., Grove, N. P., Towns, M. H., & Bretz, S. L. (2007). A rubric to characterize inquiry in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 212–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: an exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gates, J. (2014). Experimentally building a qualitative understanding of Newton’s second law. Physics Teacher, 52(9), 542–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauld, C. (1999). Using colliding pendulums to teach Newton’s third law. The Physics Teacher, 37(2), 116–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (2004). How models are used to represent reality. Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 742–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (2006). Understanding scientific reasoning (5th ed.). Belmont: Thomson/Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gönen, S. (2008). A study on student teachers’ misconceptions and scientifically acceptable conceptions about mass and gravity. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 70–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha, S., & Kim, M. (2019). Characteristics of learning by science gifted students in experiments with different experimental method. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 69(11), 1166–1176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ha, S., & Lee, G. (2015). Hermeneutics and science education : Focus on implications for conceptual change theory. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 35(1), 85–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha, S., Lee, G., & Kalman, C. S. (2013). Workshop on friction: Understanding and addressing Students' difficulties in learning science through a hermeneutical perspective. Science & Education, 22(6), 1423–1441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haagen-Schuetzenhoefer, C. (2012). Improving the quality of lab reports by using them as lab instructions. The Physics Teacher, 50(7), 430–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacyan, S. (2009). What does it mean to modify or test Newton’s second law? American Journal of Physics, 77(7), 607–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackling, M. W., & Garnett, P. J. (1991). Primary and secondary school students' attainment of science investigation skills. Research in Science Education, 21(1), 161–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, Y., Jeun, E., & Paik, S. (2014). Analysis of scientific inquiry elements in middle school science textbooks, teachers’ cognition, and an experiment case. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 34(4), 349–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugland, O. A. (2019). Newton’s second law to go. Physics Teacher, 57(2), 85–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, M. T. (2002). Elementary preservice teachers’ struggles to define inquiry-based science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 147–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hecht, E. (2006). There is no really good definition of mass. The Physics Teacher, 44(1), 40–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, F., & Mühlbayer, T. (1983). A constant force generator for the demonstration of Newton’s second law. American Journal of Physics, 51(4), 344–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. The school review, 79(2), 171–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: towards a personalized approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, N. H., Surif, J., Hui, K. P., & Yaakub, S. (2014). “Typical” teaching method applied in chemistry experiment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4946–4954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Itza-Ortiz, S. F., Rebello, S., & Zollman, D. (2004). Students’ models of Newton’s second law in mechanics and electromagnetism. European Journal of Physics, 25(1), 81–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerrim, J., Oliver, M., & Sims, S. (2019). The relationship between inquiry-based teaching and students’ achievement. New evidence from a longitudinal PISA study in England. Learning and Instruction, 61, 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karelina, A., & Etkina, E. (2007). Acting like a physicist: student approach study to experimental design. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3(2), 020106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. B. (1987). Newton’s second law. American Journal of Physics, 55(12), 1145–1146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., & Song, J. (2003). Middle school students’ ideas about the purposes of laboratory work. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 23(3), 254–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., Cheong, Y., & Song, J. (2018). The meanings of physics equations and physics education. Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 73(2), 145–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kofsky, I. L. (1951). Atwood’s machine and the teaching of Newton’s second law. American Journal of Physics, 19(6), 354–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 94–128). New York: The Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Choi, H. (2018). Science practices included in inquiry activities of physics I textbooks for the 2015 revised science curriculum. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 68(9), 985–993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Lee, B. (2018). High-school physics teachers’ difficulties in teaching textbook physics inquiries. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 38(4), 519–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemmer, M. (2018). Applying the science of learning to the learning of science: Newton’s second law of motion. Africa Education Review, 15(1), 20–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumpe, A., Czerniak, C., Haney, J., & Beltyukova, S. (2012). Beliefs about teaching science: the relationship between elementary teachers’ participation in professional development and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 153–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: an analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S. A. N. Lederman (Ed.), Handbook of research on science education. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National_Research_Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newburgh, R. (2001). Why isn’t the law of gravitation called Newton’s fourth law? Physics Education, 36(3), 202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nissani, M., Maier, C. L., & Shifrin, N. (1994). A guided discovery exercise for introductory physics labs. The Physics Teacher, 32(2), 104–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paeng, A., & Paik, S. (2005). A case study of secondary school science teachers’ faiths on experiments in science classes. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 25(2), 146–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, H. (2013). A study of middle school science teachers’ perceptions on science lessons with experiments. Journal of Science Education, 37(1), 79–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J., Lee, K., Kim, S., & Kim, H. (2005). Developing an analysis model to evaluate science-gifted education programs and analyzing biology part of education programs of science-gifted centers in Korea. Biology Education, 33(1), 122–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichertz, J. (2004). Objective hermeneutics and hermeneutic sociology of knowledge. In B. Jenner, U. Flick, E. von Kardoff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rod Watson, J., Swain, J. R., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 127–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Newton’s zeroth law: learning from listening to our students. The Physics Teacher, 43(1), 41–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. (2012). I “saw” Newton’s three laws. The Physics Teacher, 50(8), 480–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staer, H., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (1998). High school laboratory work in Western Australia: openness to inquiry. Research in Science Education, 28(2), 219–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szott, A. (2014). Open-ended laboratory investigations in a high school physics course: the difficulties and rewards of implementing inquiry-based learning in a physics lab. The Physics Teacher, 52(1), 17–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taitelbaum, D., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Carmeli, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). Evidence for teachers’ change while participating in a continuous professional development programme and implementing the inquiry approach in the chemistry laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5), 593–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Temiz, B. K., & Yavuz, A. (2014). Students’ misconceptions about Newton’s second law in outer space. European Journal of Physics, 35(4), 045004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: the force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J. J. (1987). What happens in high school science classrooms? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(6), 549–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: in pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90(5), 403–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trumper, R. (2003). The physics laboratory–a historical overview and future perspectives. Science & Education, 12(7), 645–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ural, E. (2016). The effect of guided-inquiry laboratory experiments on science education students’ chemistry laboratory attitudes, anxiety and achievement. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(4), 217–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valk, T. V. D., & Jong, O. D. (2009). Scaffolding science teachers in open-inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 829–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warnke, G. (1987). Gadamer: hermeneutics, tradition and reason. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, M., Hestenes, D., & Swackhamer, G. (1995). A modeling method for high school physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 63(7), 606–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: what can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, I., Jeong, J., Hur, M., & Kim, S. (2006). The development of laboratory instruction classification scheme. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 26(3), 342–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, I., Ryu, S., & Lim, S. (2009). The analysis of the process elements and the characteristics of biologists’ and gifted students’ designing experiment activities. Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 271–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • You, J., Park, Y., Yang, C., & Noh, T. (2011). The components and the characteristics revealed at the processes of designing application experiments of science-gifted students. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 31(4), 528–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeilinger, A. (1999). Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 71(2), S288–S297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics Education, Kyungpook National University, 80 Daehakro, Bukgu, Daegu, 41566, South Korea

    Sangwoo Ha

  2. Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, 1 Kwanakro, Kwanakgu, Seoul, 08826, South Korea

    Minchul Kim

Authors
  1. Sangwoo Ha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Minchul Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Minchul Kim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ha, S., Kim, M. Challenges of designing and carrying out laboratory experiments about Newton's second law. Sci & Educ 29, 1389–1416 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00155-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00155-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation