HOW STUDENT TEACHERS UNDERSTAND DISTANCE FORCE INTERACTIONS IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS

  • Petros Kariotoglou
  • Anna Spyrtou
  • Vassilis Tselfes
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we describe empirical research on the recording of primary school and preschool student teacher conceptions of the concept of distant force interactions in different contexts related to the school curriculum for this subject. For this objective to be achieved, we undertook ten semi-structured interviews with student teachers. Based on the findings from these interviews, we developed a written ten-item questionnaire that was distributed to 264 first-year student teachers at three Greek universities. The main findings of our research are that a significant number of students: (i) experience difficulty in recognizing the interactions in different contexts, and even in different cases within the same context; (ii) place the arrow representing the force on the body that exerts it and not on that which accepts it; and (iii) hold the alternative view that the larger the body interacting, the greater the force it exerts. Based on the above results, as well as in the ways in which they seem to be related, we developed hypotheses, potentially able to lead to the construction of a teaching–learning sequence, which focuses on the comprehension of force as the measure of a unified concept of interaction between two entities.

Key Words

alternative conceptions distance force interactions learning in different contexts physics education student teachers’ content knowledge 

References

  1. Bao, L., Hogg, K. & Zollman, D. (2002). Model analysis of fine structures of student models: an example with Newton’s third law. American Journal of Physics, 70(7), 765–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, D. (1989). Students’ concept of force: the importance of understanding Newton’s third law. Physics Education, 24(1), 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bryce, T. & MacMillan, K. (2005). Encouraging conceptual change: the use of bridging analogies in the teaching of action–reaction forces and the ‘at rest’ condition in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 737–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. diSessa, A.A. (1980). Momentum flow as an alternative perspective in elementary mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48, 365–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. diSessa, A.A., Gillespie, M.N. & Esterly, B.J. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28(6), 843–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P. & Wood–Robinson, V. (1998). Making sense of the secondary Science, 280–285. Typothito, Athens (Greek translation).Google Scholar
  7. Duit, R. & Treagust, D. (1998). Learning in science—From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Galili, I. (2001). Weight versus gravitational force: historical and educational perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1073–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gamble, R. (1989). Force. Physics Education, 24, 79–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grimellini–Tomasini, N., Pecori–Balandi, B., Pacca, J.L.A. & Villani, A. (1993). Understanding conservation laws in mechanics: students’ conceptual change in learning about collisions. Science Education, 77(2), 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hennessy, S., Wilshart, J., Whitelock, D., Deaney, R., Brawn, R., Velle, L., McFarlane, A., Ruthven, K. & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical approaches for technology-integrated science teaching. Computers & Education, 48, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heywood, D. & Parker, J. (2001). Describing the cognitive landscape in learning and teaching about forces. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1177–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ioannides, C. & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meanings of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2(1), 5–62.Google Scholar
  14. Jimoyiannis, A. & Komis, V. (2003). Investigating Greek students’ ideas about forces and motion. Research in Science Education, 33(3), 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kolokotronis, D. & Solomonidou, C. (2003). A step-by-step design and development of an integrated educational software to deal with students’ empirical ideas about mechanical interaction. Education and Information Technologies, 8, 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kruger, C., Summers, M. & Palacio, D. (1990a). An investigation of some English primary British teachers’ understanding of the concepts force and gravity. British Educational Research Journal, 16(4), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kruger, C., Summers, M. & Palacio, D. (1990b). Adding forces—a target for primary science INSET. British Journal of In-Service Education, 16(1), 45–52.Google Scholar
  18. Meheut, M. & Psillos, D. (2004). Teaching–learning sequences: aims and tools for science education research. International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 515–652. (special issue).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ministry of Education. (2004). A cross thematic curriculum framework for compulsory education. http://www.pi-schools.gr/programs/depps/index_eng.
  20. Montanero, M., Perez, A.L. & Suero, M.I. (1995). A survey of students’ understanding of colliding bodies. Physics Education, 30, 277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Montanero, M., Suero, M.I., Perez, A.L. & Pardo, P.J. (2002). Implicit theories of static interactions between two bodies. Physics Education, 37(4), 318–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Palmer, H.D. (2001). Investigating the relationship between students’ multiple conceptions of action and reaction in cases of static equilibrium. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19(2), 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parker, J. & Heywood, D. (2000). Exploring the relationship between subject knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in primary teachers’ learning about forces. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Savinainen, A. & Scott, P. (2002). Using the force concept inventory to monitor student learning and to plan teaching. Physics Education, 31(1), 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Savinainen, A., Scott, P. & Viiri, J. (2005). Using a bridging representation and social interactions to foster conceptual change: designing and evaluating an instructional sequence for Newton’s third law. Science Education, 89, 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stavy, R., Tamir, P. & Tirosh, D. (2002). Intuitive rules: The case of “More A-more B”. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 217–231). Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Summers, M. (1992). Improving primary school teachers’ understanding of science concepts - theory into practice. International Journal of Science Education, 14(1), 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Terry, C., Jones, G. & Hurford, W. (1985). Children’s conceptual understanding of forces and equilibrium. Physics Education, 20, 162–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thijs, G. (1992). Evaluation of an introductory course on “Force” considering students’ preconceptions. Science Education, 76(2), 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thijs, G. & Bosch, G. (1995). Cognitive effects of science experiments focusing on students’ preconceptions of force: a comparison of demonstrations and small-group practicals. International Journal of Science Education, 7(3), 311–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Trumper, R. (1996). A cross-college age study about physics students’ conceptions of force in pre-service training for high school teachers. Physics Education, 31, 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Watts, M. (1982). Gravity - don’t take it for granted!. Physics Education, 17, 116–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Watts, D. & Zylberszajn, A. (1981). A survey of some children’s ideas about force. Physics Education, 16, 360–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petros Kariotoglou
    • 1
  • Anna Spyrtou
    • 1
  • Vassilis Tselfes
    • 2
  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of Western MacedoniaFlorinaGreece
  2. 2.Department of Early Childhood EducationUniversity of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations