Research in Science Education

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 253–260 | Cite as

The effect of the direction of motion on students' conceptions of forces

  • David Palmer
Article

Abstract

The ability to generalise principles to a range of situations is generally considered to be important in science education. However, several studies have found that students do not consistently apply their conceptions in the study of mechanics, and that they respond to irrelevant contextual features of the question, such as the type of object in motion. The present study was designed to investigate whether the direction of the motion (i.e. vertical or horizontal) was a contextual feature which influenced students' ideas about the forces involved in motion. The results indicated that 14% of the university science teaching students studied and 25% of the Year 10 students were influenced by the direction of the motion. Some of these students described a ‘motion force’ in one direction (usually vertical) but not the other, while others described forces opposing the motion in one direction (which was always vertical) but not the other.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Champagne, A., Klopfer, L. & Anderson, J. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics.American Journal of Physics, 48, 1074–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chi, M., Feltovich, P. & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorisation and representation of physics problems by experts and novices.Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.Google Scholar
  3. Clement, J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics.American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Driver, R. (1989). Students' conceptions and the learning of science.International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 481–490.Google Scholar
  5. Finegold, M. & Gorsky, P. (1991). Students' concepts of force as applied to related physical systems: A search for consistency.International Journal of Science Education, 13, 97–113.Google Scholar
  6. Fischbein, E., Stavy, R. & Ma-Naim, H. (1989). The psychological structure of naive impetus conceptions.International Journal of Science Education, 11, 71–81.Google Scholar
  7. Galili, I. & Bar, V. (1992). Motion implies force: where to expect vestiges of the misconception?International Journal of Science Education, 14, 63–81.Google Scholar
  8. Gunstone, R. F. (1990). ‘Children's science’: A decade of developments in constructivist views of science teaching and learning.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 36(4), 9–19.Google Scholar
  9. Halloun, I. & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial state of college physics students.American Journal of Physics, 53, 1043–1055.Google Scholar
  10. McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics.Scientific American, 248, 114–122.Google Scholar
  11. Nussbaum, J. (1989). Classroom conceptual change: philosophical perspectives.International Journal of Science Education, 11, 530–540.Google Scholar
  12. Osborne, R. (1981). Science education: Where do we start?Australian Science Teachers Journal, 28(1), 21–30.Google Scholar
  13. Palmer, D. (1993). How consistently do students use their alternative conceptions?Research in Science Education, 23, 228–235.Google Scholar
  14. Reif, F. (1987). Instructional design, cognition, and technology: applications to the teaching of scientific concepts,Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 309–324.Google Scholar
  15. Whitelock, D. (1991). Investigating a model of commonsense thinking about causes of motion with 7 to 16-year-old pupils,International Journal of Science Education, 13, 321–340.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Science Education Research Association 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Palmer
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of NewcastleNewcastle

Personalised recommendations