• Erdat CatalogluEmail author
  • Salih Ates


The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a relationship between pre-service science teachers’ Field Dependent or Field Independent (FD/FI) cognitive styles and the application of degrees of naive impetus theory. The sample consisted of 122 pre-service science teachers (97 females and 25 males) who were enrolled in the Introductory Physics course required by the Science Education program. Data were collected in two successive years, after the completion of the required Introductory Physics undergraduate courses, in 2008 and 2009. The Group Embedded Figure Test and Impetus Theory Application Test (a two-tier-type test) were administered to assess the FD/FI tendency of students and to determine the degree students applied the naïve impetus theory, respectively. Initial results showed that a majority of students had made use of the native impetus theory repeatedly. The results also indicated that the degree to which students applied the naïve impetus theory was statistically related to their FD/FI cognitive styles. The findings of this research showed that there existed a statistically significant difference between the FI and FD students’ degree of applying the naïve impetus theory in favor of FI students. However, the test score gap between FI and FD students remained almost constant regardless of the testing instruments utilized in this study.

Key words

field independent/field dependent cognitive styles naïve impetus theory pre-service science teachers 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alamolhodaei, H. (1996). A study in higher education calculus and students’ learning styles. Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
  2. Ates, S. & Cataloglu, E. (2007a). The effects of students’ cognitive styles on conceptual understandings and problem solving skills in introductory mechanics. Research in Science and Technological Education, 25, 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ates, S. & Cataloglu, E. (2007b). The effects of students’ reasoning abilities on conceptual understandings and problem solving skills in introductory mechanics. European Journal of Physics, 28, 1161–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayraktar, S. (2009). Misconceptions of Turkish pre-service teachers about force and motion. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. Graber, and A. Kross (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference of the ESERA, Kiel.Google Scholar
  6. Cataloglu, E. (1996). Promoting teachers’ awareness of students’ misconceptions in introductory mechanics. M.Sc. thesis, METU, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  7. Clement, J. (1981). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogy and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1241–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Driver, R., Guesne, E. & Tiberghein, A. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  10. El-Banna, H. (1987). The development of a predictive theory of science education based upon information processing theory. Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow, Scotland.Google Scholar
  11. Franco, A. B. (2004). Avempace, projectile motion and impetus theory. Journal of the History of Ideas, 64, 521–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Franco, G. M., Muis, K. R., Kendeou, P., Ranellucci, J., Sampasivam, L. & Wang, X. (2012). Examining the influences of epistemic beliefs and knowledge representations on cognitive processing and conceptual change when learning physics. Learning and Instruction, 22, 62–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frank, B. M. (1984). Effect of field independence-dependence and study technique on learning from a lecture. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 669–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gray, C. (1997). A study of factors affecting a curriculum innovations in university chemistry. Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
  15. Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Halloun, I. & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1043–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hestenes, D. & Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test. Physics Teacher, 30, 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hestenes, D., Wells, M. & Swachhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. Physics Teacher, 30, 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hubbart, L. T. (1993). The effect of context on visual representational momentum. Memory & Cognition, 21, 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hubbart, L. T. (2006). Bridging the gap: Roles and contributions of representational momentum. Psicologica, 27, 1–34.Google Scholar
  21. Johnstone, A. H. & Al-Naeme, F. F. (1991). Room for scientific thought. International Journal of Science Education, 13(2), 187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jonassen, D. H. & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences: Learning and instruction. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Karacam, S. (2005). Determining the conceptual understanding levels of high school students’ having different cognitive styles on major concepts of motion and motion laws by using different assessment techniques. M.A. thesis, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Turkey.Google Scholar
  24. Kozhevnicov, M. & Hegarty, M. (2001). Impetus beliefs as default heuristics: Dissociation between explicit and implicit knowledge about motion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 439–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kruger, C., Palacio, D. & Summers, M. (1992). Surveys of English primary school teachers’ conceptions of force, energy, and materials. Science Education, 76, 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lawson, A. E., Clark, B., Meldrum, E. C., Falconer, K. A., Sequist, J. M. & Kwon, Y.-J. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning in college biology: Do two levels of general hypothesis-testing skills exist? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu, X. & MacIsaac, D. (2005). An investigation of factors affecting the degree of naïve impetus theory application. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McDermott, C. L. (2001). Oersted medal lecture 2001: Physics education research—The key to students learning. American Journal of Physics, 69, 1127–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Odom, A. L. & Barrow, L. H. (1995). The development and application of a two-tiered diagnostic test measuring college biology students’ understanding of diffusion and osmosis following a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sencar, S. & Eryılmaz, A. (2004). Factors mediating the effect of gender on ninth-grade Turkish students’ misconceptions concerning electric circuit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 603–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shepardson, D. P. & Pizzini, E. L. (1994). Gender, achievement, and perception toward science activities. School Science and Mathematics, 94, 188–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thornton, R. K. & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing students learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation. American Journal of Physics, 66, 228–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tinajero, C. & Paramo, M. F. (1997). Field dependence/field independence and academic achievement: A re-examination of their relationship. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Treagust, D. F. (1986). Evaluating students’ misconceptions by means of diagnostic multiple choice items. Research in Science Education, 16, 199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Trumper, R. & Gorsky, P. (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
  36. Witkin, H. A. & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins field dependence and field independence. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Witkin, H. A., Goodenough, D. R., Moore, C. A. & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47, 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Young-Jin, L. (2011). Utilizing formative assessments to guide student learning in an interactive physics learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39, 245–260.Google Scholar
  39. Ziane, J.H. (1996). The application of information processing theory to the learning of physics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow, Scotland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Graduate School of EducationBilkent UniversityBilkentTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Elementary Education, Faculty of Gazi EducationGazi UniversityGolkoy-BoluTurkey

Personalised recommendations