Research in Science Education

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 228–235 | Cite as

How consistently do students use their alternative conceptions?

  • David Palmer
Article

Abstract

Existing research indicates that many students hold an alternative conception that “an object in motion must have a force pushing it along”, but they do not apply this conception consistently to problems involving different types of motion. This project was designed to investigate the degree of consistency of student responses to questions concerned with linear motion. The results indicated that most students were unable to consistently apply either the alternative conception or the correct scientific response. The students appeared to have a general problem in recognising similarities between contexts, even when the contexts were closely related. The results also suggested that the responses of some students were influenced by contextual factors such as the nature of the moving body, the direction of the motion and the speed of the motion.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Driver, R. (1989). Students' conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal ofScience Education, 11(5), 481–490.Google Scholar
  2. Engel Clough, E., & Driver, R. (1986). A study of consistency in the use of students' conceptual frameworks across different task concepts.Science Education, 70 (4), 473–496.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Halloun, I. & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial state of college physics students.American Journal of Physics, 53, 1043–1055.Google Scholar
  7. Licht, P. & Thijs, G. (1990). Method to trace coherence and persistence of preconceptions.International Journal of Science Education, 12, 403–416.Google Scholar
  8. McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics.Scientific American, 248, 114–122.Google Scholar
  9. Osborne, R.J. & Gilbert, J.K. (1980). A technique for exploring students' views of the world.Physics Education, 15, 376–379.Google Scholar
  10. Saunders, W.L. (1992). The constructivist perspective: implications and teaching strategies for science.School Science and Mathematics, 92, 136–141.Google Scholar
  11. Summers, M. & Kruger, C. (1992). Research into English primary school teachers' understanding of the concept energy.Evaluation and Research in Education, 6, 95–111.Google Scholar
  12. Tamir, P. (1990). Justifying the selection of answers in multiple choice items.International Journal of Science Education, 12, 563–573.Google Scholar
  13. Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W.F. (1989).The concept of the Earth's shape: a study of conceptual change in childhood. Manuscript (University of Illinois, Illinois).Google Scholar
  14. 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 1993

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations