Misconceptions of Turkish Pre-Service Teachers about Force and Motion

  • Sule BayraktarEmail author


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 words

force and motion misconceptions pre-service teachers science education 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bar, V. & Zinn, B. (1998). Similar frameworks of action at a distance: Early scientists’ and pupils’ ideas. Science & Education, 7(5), 471–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernhard, J. (2000). Can a combination of hands-on experiments and computers facilitate better learning in mechanics? Retrieved from web:
  3. 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
  4. Cayhadi, V. (2004). The effect of interactive engagement teaching on student understanding of introductory physics at the faculty of engineering, University of Surabaya, Indonesia. Higher Education Research & Development, 23, 455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chambers, S.K. & Andre T. (1997). Gender, prior knowledge, interest, and experience in electricity and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caramazza, A., McCloskey, M. & Green, B. (1981). Naive beliefs in ‘sophisticated’ subjects: Misconceptions about trajectories of motion. Cognition, 9, 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Finegold, M. & Gorsky, P. (1988). Learning about force: Simulating the outcomes of pupils’ misconceptions. Instructional Science, 17, 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forrest, G. M. (1992). Gender differences in school science examinations. Studies in Science Education, 20, 87–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Gruswammy, C., Somers, M.D. & Hussey, R.G. (1997). Students’ understanding of the transfer of charge between conductors. Physics Education, 32(2), 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guisasola, J., Almud’i, J. & Zubimendi, J. (2004). Difficulties in learning the introductory magnetic field theory in the first years of university. Science Education, 88, 443–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gunstone, R.F. (1987). Student understanding in mechanics: A large population survey. American Journal of Physics, 55, 691–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gunstone, R.F. & White, R. (1981). Understanding of gravity. Science Education, 65, 291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guzzetti, B.J., Snyder, T.E., Glass, G.V., & Gamas, W.S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 117–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hakkarainen, O. & Ahtee, M. (2007). The durability of conceptual change in learning the concept of weight in the case of a pulley in balance. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(3), 461–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Halloun, I.A. & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1056–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hammer, D. (1996). More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research. American Journal of Physics, 64, 1316–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Hestenes, D., Wells, M. & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howe, A.C. & Jones, L. (1998). Engaging Children in Science (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  22. Ireson, G. (2000). The quantum understanding of pre-university physics students. Physics Education, 35(1), 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kruger, C., Palacio, D. & Summers, M. (1992). Surveys of English primary school teachers’ conceptions of force, energy and materials. Science Education, 76(4), 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lawson, A.E. (1995). Science Teaching and the Development of Thinking. Belmont CA: Watsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  25. Lawrenz, F. (1986). Misconceptions of physical science concepts among elementary school teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 86, 654–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leite, L., Mendoza, J. & Borsese, A. (2007). Teachers’ and prospective teachers’ explanations of liquid-state phenomena: A comparative study involving three European countries. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 349–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. McCloskey, M. & Kohl, D. (1983). Naive physics? The curvilinear impetus principle and its role in interactions with moving objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Memory and Cognition, 9, 146–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining the ‘at rest’ condition of an object. The Physics Teacher, 20, 10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nakhleh, M.B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nakleh, M.B. & Samarapungavan, A. (1999). Elementary school children’s beliefs about matte. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 777–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Palmer, D.H. & Flanagan, R.B. (1997). Readiness to change the conception that “Motion-Implies-Force”: A comparison of 12-year-old and 16-year-old Students. Science Education, 81, 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Quiles-Pardo, J. & Solaz-Portole’s, J.J. (1995). Students and teachers misapplication’ of Le Chatelier’s Principle: Implications for the teaching of chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 32, 939–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reach, L.E. (1992). Demonstrating Newton’s Third Law. The Science Teacher, 59(9), 28–31.Google Scholar
  35. Rosenquist, M.L. & McDermott, L.C. (1987). A conceptual approach to teaching mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 407–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sadanand, N. & Kess, J. (1990). Concepts in force and motion. The Physics Teacher, 28(8), 503–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Savinainen, A. & Scott, P. (2002). Using the Force Concept Inventory to monitor student learning and to plan teaching. Physics Education, 37(1), 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Svec, M.T., Boone, W.J. & Olmer, C. (1995). Changes in a pre-service elementary teachers’ physics course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(2), 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tao, P. & Gunstone, R.F. (1999). The Process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 859–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). (1996). TIMSS Report, Washington, D. C.: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  43. Trowbridge, D.E. & McDermott, L.C. (1980). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 48, 1020–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. Trumper, R. & Gorsky, P. (1997). A survey of biology students’ conceptions of force in pre-service training for high school teachers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 15(2), 133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Trumper, R., Raviolo, A. & Shnersch, A. (2000). A cross cultural survey of conceptions of energy among elementary school teachers in training: Empirical results from Israel and Argentina. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 697–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Trundle, K.C., Atwood, R.K. & Christopher, J.E. (2007). A longitudinal study of conceptual change: Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of moon phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tsai, C.C. (1999). Overcoming junior high school students’ misconceptions about microscopic views of phase change: A study of an analogy activity. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Viiri, J. (1996). Teaching the force concept: a constructivist teaching experiment in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 21, 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Watts, D.M. & Zylbersztajn, A. (1981). A survey of some children’s ideas about force. Physics Education, 16, 360–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Whitaker, R.J. (1983). Aristotle is not dead: Student understanding of trajectory motion. American Journal of Physics, 51, 352–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Whiteley, P. (1995). Student Difficulties with the force(s) acting on the Moon. New Approaches, 31–33.Google Scholar
  54. Yeo, S. & Zadnik, M. (2000). Newton, we have a problem... Australian Science Teachers Journal, 46(1), 9–18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationSelcuk UniversityKonyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations