• Mirjam EbersbachEmail author
  • Wim Van Dooren
  • Lieven Verschaffel


The present study aimed at investigating children's and adolescents' understanding of constant and accelerated motions. The main objectives were (1) to investigate whether different task formats would affect the performance and (2) to track developmental changes in this domain. Five to 16 year olds (N = 157) predicted the distances of a moving vehicle on the basis of its movement durations on both a horizontal and an inclined plane. The task formats involved: (1) nonverbal action tasks, (2) number-based missing-value word problems, and (3) verbal judgments. The majority of participants of all age groups based their reactions in the first two task types on the assumption of a linear relationship between time and distance—which is correct for motions with constant speed but incorrect for accelerated motions. However, in the verbal judgments that tapped conceptual understanding, children from the age of 8 years onwards correctly assumed that an object rolling down an inclined plane would accelerate. The role of the task format in evoking erroneous beliefs and strategies is discussed.


cognitive development explicit knowledge implicit knowledge misconception research physics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, N. H. (1983). Intuitive physics: Understanding and learning of physical relations. In T. J. Tighe, & B. E. Shepp (Eds.), Perception, cognition, and development: Interactional analyses (pp. 231–265). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, J. O. (1995). Prior knowledge, text features, and idea maps. Technical Report No. 608. Urbana: Centre for the Study of Reading.Google Scholar
  3. Baillargeon, R., & Hanko-Summers, S. (1990). Is the top object adequately supported by the bottom object? Young infants' understanding of support relations. Cognitive Development, 5, 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertamini, M., Spooner, A., & Hecht, H. (2005). The representation of naïve knowledge about physics. Studies in Multidisciplinarity, 2, 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bullock, M., & Sodian, B. (2000). Scientific reasoning. In F. W. Weinert, & W. Schneider (Eds.), Reports on Wave 10. The Munich Longitudinal Study on the Genesis of Individual Competencies (LOGIC) (pp. 31–40): Munich: Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research.Google Scholar
  6. Bullock, M., & Ziegler, A. (1999). Scientific reasoning: Developmental and individual differences. In F. E. Weinert, & W. Schneider (Eds.), Individual development from 3 to 12. Findings from the Munich Longitudinal Study (pp. 38–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cahyadi, M. V., & Butler, P. H. (2004). Undergraduate students' understanding of falling bodies in idealized and real-world situations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 569–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caramazza, A., McCloskey, M., & Green, B. (1981). Naive beliefs in “sophisticated” subjects: Misconceptions about trajectories of objects. Cognition, 9, 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  10. Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., & Anderson, J. H. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48, 1074–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chi, M., & Roscoe, R. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon, & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change (pp. 3–27). London: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clement, J., Brown, D. E., & Zietsman, A. (1989). Not all preconcepstions are misconceptions: Finding “anchoring” conceptions for grounding instruction on students' intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 554–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Bock, D., Verschaffel, L., & Janssens, D. (1998). The predominance of the linear model in secondary school students' solutions of word problems involving length and area of similar plane figures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35, 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Bock, D., Van Dooren, W., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2002). Improper use of linear reasoning: An in-depth study of the nature and the irresistibility of secondary school students' errors. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 50, 311–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Bock, D., Verschaffel, L., Janssens, D., Van Dooren, W., & Claes, K. (2003). Do realistic contexts and graphical representations always have a beneficial impact on students' performance? Negative evidence from a study on modelling non-linear geometry problems. Learning and Instruction, 13, 441–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dienes, Z., & Perner, J. (1999) A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22, 735–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. diSessa, A. (1982). Unlearning Aristotelian physics: A study of knowledge-based learning. Cognitive Science, 6, 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. diSessa, A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105–225.Google Scholar
  19. Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography: Students' and teachers' conceptions and science education. Retrieved August 19, 2009, from
  20. Ebersbach, M., & Resing, W. C. M. (2007). Shedding new light on an old problem: The estimation of shadow sizes in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 97, 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ebersbach, M., Van Dooren, W., Goudriaan, M., & Verschaffel, L. (2010). Discriminating non-linearity from linearity: Its cognitive foundations in 5-year-olds. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12, 4–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ebersbach, M., Van Dooren, W., Van den Noortgate, W., & Resing, W. C. M. (2008). Understanding linear and exponential growth: Searching for the roots in 6- to 9-year-olds. Cognitive Development, 23, 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ebersbach, M., & Wilkening, F. (2007). Children's intuitive mathematics: The development of knowledge about non-linear growth. Child Development, 78, 296–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elby, A. (2001). Helping physics students learn how to learn. American Journal of Physics, 69, S54–S64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ellis, A. B., & Grinstead, P. (2008). Hidden lessons: How a focus on slope-like properties of quadratic functions encouraged unexpected generalizations. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27, 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frank, B. W., Kanim, S. E., & Gomez, L. S. (2008). Accounting for variability in student responses to motion questions. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 4, 020102-1–020102-11. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.020102.Google Scholar
  27. Freyd, J. J., & Jones, K. T. (1994). Representational momentum for a spiral path. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 968–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Friedman, W. J. (2002). Arrows of time in infancy: The representation of temporal-causal invariances. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 252–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gelman R., & Meck E. (1983). Preschooler's counting: Principles before skills. Cognition, 13, 343–359.Google Scholar
  30. Gilden, D. L., & Profitt, D. R. (1989). Understanding collision dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 372–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gillard, E., Van Dooren, W., Schaeken, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Proportional reasoning as a heuristic-based process: Time constraint and dual task considerations. Experimental Psychology, 56, 92–99.Google Scholar
  32. Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985a). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1056–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985b). The initial knowledge state of college students. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1043–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hammer, D. (1996). More than misconception: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research. American Journal of Physics, 64, 1316–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hays, W. L. (1994). Statistics (5th ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  36. Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physic, 60, 732–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kaiser, M. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Anderson, K. (1985a). Judgments of natural and anomalous trajectories in the presence and absence of motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 795–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaiser, M. K., Proffitt, D. R., & McCloskey, M. (1985b). The development of beliefs about falling objects. Perception and Psychophysics, 38, 533–539.Google Scholar
  39. Kim, I. K., & Spelke, E. S. (1992). Infants' sensitivity to effects of gravity on visible object motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 385–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kozhevnikov, M., & Hegarty, M. (2001).Impetus beliefs as default heuristics: Dissociation between explicit and implicit knowledge about motion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 439–453.Google Scholar
  41. Krist, H., Fieberg, E. L., & Wilkening, F. (1993). Intuitive physics in action and judgement: The development of knowledge about projectile motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 952–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1, 113–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McCloskey, M. (1983). Naïve theories of motion. In D. Gentner, & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-324). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. McCloskey, M., & Kaiser, M. K. (1984). Children's intuitive physics. The Sciences, 24, 40–45.Google Scholar
  46. Mestre, J. P. (1991). Learning and instruction in pre-college physical science. Physics Today, 44, 56–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oberle, C. D., McBeath, M. K., Madigan, S. C., & Sugar, T. G. (2005). The Galileo bias: A naive conceptual belief that influences people's perceptions and performance in a ball-dropping task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 643–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pine, K. J., & Messer, D. J. (1999). What children do and what children know: Looking beyond success using Karmiloff–Smith's RR framework. New Ideas in Psychology, 17, 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Proffitt, D. R., & Gilden, D. L. (1989). Understanding natural dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 384–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Proffitt, D. R., Kaiser, M. K., & Whelan, S. M. (1990). Understanding wheel dynamics. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 342–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Reed, S. K. (1984). Estimating answers to algebra word problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 10, 778–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reed, S. K., & Saavedra, N. A. (1986). A comparison of computation, discovery, and graph methods for improving students' conception of average speed. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 31–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reif, F., & Allen, S. (1992). Cognition for interpreting scientific concepts: A study of acceleration. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rohrer, D. (2002). Misconceptions about incline speed for non-linear slopes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 963–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rohrer, D. (2003). The natural appearance of unnatural incline speed. Memory & Cognition, 31, 816–826.Google Scholar
  56. Scherr, R. E. (2007). Modeling student thinking: An example from special relativity. American Journal of Physics, 75, 272–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shanon, B. (1976). Aristotelianism, Newtonianism and the physics of the layman. Perception, 5, 241–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith, C., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21, 177–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sodian, B., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1991). Young children's differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 62, 753–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Suarez, A. (1977). Die quadratische Funktion [The quadratic function]. In A. Suarez (Ed.), Formales Denken und Funktionsbegriff bei Jugendlichen (pp. 93–121). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  61. 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
  62. Trowbridge, D. E., & McDermott, L. C. (1981). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 49, 242–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Depaepe, F., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2003). The illusion of linearity: Expanding the evidence towards probabilistic reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53, 113–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Hessels, A., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2004). Remedying secondary school students' illusion of linearity. A teaching experiment striving for conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 14, 485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Hessels, A., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2005). Not everything is proportional: Effects of age and problem type on propensities for overgeneralization. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2007). Students' over-reliance on linear methods: A scholastic effect? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2008). The linear imperative: An inventory and conceptual analysis of students' over-use of linearity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 311–342.Google Scholar
  68. Vondracek, M. (2003). Enhancing student learning by tapping into physics they already know. Physics Teacher, 41, 109–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modelling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 51–67.Google Scholar
  70. Vosniadou, S., & Verschaffel, L. (2004). Extending the conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 14, 445–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Weil-Barais, A., & Vergnaud, G. (1990). Students' conceptions in physics and mathematics: Biases and helps. In J.-P. Caverni, J.-M. Fabre, & M. Gonzales (Eds.), Cognitive biases (pp. 69–84). North-Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  72. Weinert, F. E., Bullock, M., & Schneider, W. (1999). Universal, differential, and individual aspects of child development from 3 to 12: What can we learn from a comprehensive longitudinal study? In F. E.Weinert & W. Schneider (Eds.), Individual development from 3 to 12. Findings from the Munich Longitudinal Study (pp. 324–350). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. White, B. (1983). Sources of difficulty in understanding Newtonian dynamics. Cognitive Science, 7, 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilkening, F. (1981). Integrating velocity, time, and distance information: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 231–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mirjam Ebersbach
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wim Van Dooren
    • 2
  • Lieven Verschaffel
    • 2
  1. 1.Martin-Luther-University of Halle–WittenbergInstitut fuer PsychologieHalle (S.)Germany
  2. 2.Center for Instructional Psychology and TechnologyUniversity of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations