Misconceptions of Turkish Pre-Service Teachers about Force and Motion
- 811 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to diagnose the misconceptions held by pre-service physics teachers about force and motion. The secondary aim of the study was to detect whether misconceptions vary according to gender, educational level, and culture. The study was conducted with 79 student-teachers attending to one of the largest faculties of education in Turkey. Force Concept Inventory (FCI) was used to diagnose student-teachers’ misconceptions. FCI is a conceptual test consisting of 29 multiple choice items. Each wrong choice for each question reflects a specific misconception about the force and motion concepts. Data from the study was analyzed by using frequencies, t-test, and ANOVA for making comparisons according to gender and years of education. Results of the study showed that student-teachers of physics hold very strong misconceptions about impetus and active force. No significant differences were found between male and female students’ scores on the concept test. The results also showed that misconceptions about force and motion decreased through the years of education. However, they did not disappear completely. Findings of the study are very similar to the other research findings conducted on the subject in other countries. Student-teachers’ conceptions about Newton’s Third Law, on the other hand, were significantly better than those observed in other research done in other countries such as the US and Finland.
Key wordsforce and motion misconceptions pre-service teachers science education
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bernhard, J. (2000). Can a combination of hands-on experiments and computers facilitate better learning in mechanics? Retrieved from web: http://www.itn.liu.se/~jonbe/.
- Bogdanov, S. & Viiri, J. (1999). Students’ understanding of the force concept in Russia and Finland. In M. Komorek, H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, & A. Kross (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Kiel, August 1999.Google Scholar
- Gilbert, J.K. & Zylbersztajn, A. (1985). A conceptual framework for science education: The case study of force and movement. European Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 107–120.Google Scholar
- Hand, B. & Treagust, D.F. (1991). Student achievement and science curriculum development using a constructive framework. School Science and Mathematics, 91, 172–176.Google Scholar
- Howe, A.C. & Jones, L. (1998). Engaging Children in Science (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
- Lawson, A.E. (1995). Science Teaching and the Development of Thinking. Belmont CA: Watsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Maloney, D.P. (1994). Research on problem solving: Physics. In Gabel, & L. Dorothy (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Reach, L.E. (1992). Demonstrating Newton’s Third Law. The Science Teacher, 59(9), 28–31.Google Scholar
- Saul, J. & Redish, E. (1998). A comparison of pre- and post-FCI. Results for innovative and traditional introductory calculus-based physics classes. AAPT Announcer, 28, 80.Google Scholar
- Thijs, G. & Van Den Berg, E. (1994). Cultural factors in the origin and remediation of alternative frameworks in physics. Science and Education, 4(4), 1–32.Google Scholar
- Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). (1996). TIMSS Report, Washington, D. C.: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
- Trumper, R. (1999). A Longitudinal study of physics students’ conceptions of force in pre-service training for high school teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 22(2/3), 247–258.Google Scholar
- Trumper, R. (2000). A cross-college age study about physics students’ conceptions of force in pre-service training for high school teachers. Curriculum Matters, 227–238.Google Scholar
- Whiteley, P. (1995). Student Difficulties with the force(s) acting on the Moon. New Approaches, 31–33.Google Scholar
- Yeo, S. & Zadnik, M. (2000). Newton, we have a problem... Australian Science Teachers Journal, 46(1), 9–18.Google Scholar