• Hana Stein
  • Igal GaliliEmail author


Several researches in physics education have demonstrated the problematic status of teaching the subject of gravitation and weight and students’ knowledge of these concepts. This paper presents findings of a study of students’ knowledge following instruction within a changed conceptual framework of the weight concept in several 9th grade classes (N = 141). The experimental instruction addressed a representative set of physical situations designed to facilitate students’ construction of adequate knowledge regarding weight and gravitational force. We checked the ability of middle school students to distinguish between these two concepts and the effectiveness of the operational definition of weight in helping students to account for novel physical situations. A written open-format qualitative questionnaire was used in the assessment that analyzed the data by means of quantitative (statistical) and qualitative (scheme-facets) tools. The same questionnaire was applied to 91 high school students exposed to the advanced placement level of teaching of the subject of gravitation and weight in Israeli schools. The results indicated an advantage of the experimental teaching with regard to students’ pertinent conceptual knowledge.


conceptual learning operational definition of weight representative set of physical situations scheme-facets structure of students’ knowledge students’ knowledge of weight and gravitation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1985). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Afifi, A. A. & Azen, S. P. (1979). Statistical analysis: A computer oriented approach. New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
  3. Arons, A. (1990). A guide to introductory physics teaching. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Aubrecht, G. J. (2011). About the international system of units (SI) Part I. Introduction and Bibliography. The Physics Teacher, 49(8), 493.Google Scholar
  5. Barlett, A. (2010). Apparent weight: A concept that is confusing and unnecessary. Physics Teacher, 48(8), 522.Google Scholar
  6. Benson, H. (1996). University physics (p. 84). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Born, M. (1965). Einstein’s theory of relativity. New York, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
  8. Brosh, Y. (2012). The influence of the definition of the concept of weight on the meaning, understanding and conception of weight and gravity in middle school. PhD thesis. Jerusalem, Israel: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, R. (1999). Weight—Don’t use the word at all. The Physics Teacher, 37, 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bunge, M. (1973). Philosophy of physics. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chaikin, S. E. (1963). The physical basis of mechanics. Moscow: Gosudarstvenoe Izdatelstvo Fisiko-Matematicheskoi Literaturi.Google Scholar
  12. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271--315.Google Scholar
  14. Duit, R., Gropengießer, H. & Kattmann, U. (2005). Towards science education research that is relevant for improving practice: The model of educational reconstruction. In H. E. Fischer (Ed.), Developing standards in research on science education (pp. 1–9). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  15. Einstein, A. (1916/1923). The foundation of the general theory of relativity in the principle of relativity (pp. 111–164). Dover: New York, NY.Google Scholar
  16. Einstein, A. & Infeld, L. (1938). The evolution of physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Enghag, M., Forsman, J., Linder, C., MacKinnon, A. & Moons, E. (2013). Using a disciplinary discourse lens to explore how representations afford meaning making in a typical wave physics course. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 625–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. French, A. P. (1971). Newtonian mechanics (pp. 129–130). New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
  19. French, A. P. (1983). Is g really the acceleration due to gravity? Physics Teacher, 21,528--529.Google Scholar
  20. French, A. P. (1995). On weightlessness. American Journal of Physics, 63(2), 105.Google Scholar
  21. Galili, I. (1993). Weight and gravity: Teachers’ ambiguity and students’ confusion about the concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 15(1), 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Galili, I. (2001). Weight versus gravitational force: Historical and educational perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1073–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Galili, I. (2011). Promotion of content cultural knowledge through the use of the history and philosophy of science. Science & Education, 21(9), 1283–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Galili, I. (2013). Excurse to the history of weight concept: From Aristotle to Newton and then to Einstein. In I. Galili (Ed.), The pleasure of understanding. Jerusalem, Israel: Science Teaching Center, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  25. Galili, I. & Hazan, A. (2000). The influence of a historically oriented course on students’ content knowledge in optics evaluated by means of facets-schemes analysis. American Journal of Physics, 68(7), S3–S15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Galili, I. & Kaplan, D. (1996). Students’ operation with the concept of weight. Science Education, 80(4), 457–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Galili, I. & Lavrik, V. (1998). Flux concept in learning about light. A critique of the present situation. Science Education, 82(5), 591–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Galili, I. & Lehavi, Y. (2003). The importance of weightlessness and tides in teaching gravitation. American Journal of Physics, 71(11), 1127–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Galili, I. & Lehavi, Y. (2006). Definitions of physical concepts: A study of physics teachers’ knowledge and views. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 521–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gőnen, S. (2008). A study on student teachers’ misconceptions and scientifically acceptable conceptions about mass and gravity. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grayson, D. (2004). Concept substitution: A teaching strategy for helping students disentangle related physics concepts. American Journal of Physics, 72(8), 1126–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gurel, Z. & Acar, H. (2003). Research into students’ views about basic physics principles in a weightless environment. Astronomy Education Review, 2(1), 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hewitt, P. G. (2002). Conceptual physics (9th ed., p. 160). San Francisco, CA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  34. Hewitt, P. G. (2013). Weight. Physics Teacher, 51(6), 330.Google Scholar
  35. Hobson, A. (2003). Physics. Concepts and connections. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  36. Iona, M. (1975). The meaning of weight, Physics Teacher, 13, 263.Google Scholar
  37. Iona, M. (1976). Weight and weightlessness, Physics Teacher, 14(5), 491.Google Scholar
  38. Iona, M. (1988). Weightlessness and microgravity, Physics Teacher, 26(2), 72.Google Scholar
  39. Iona, M. (1999). Weight – An official definition, Physics Teacher, 37(4), 238.Google Scholar
  40. Karplus, R. (1981). Educational aspects of the structure of physics. American Journal of Physics, 49(3), 238–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Keller, F. J., Gettys, W. E. & Skove, M. J. (1993). Physics (pp. 99–100). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  42. Knight, R. (2004). Physics for scientists and engeneers (pp. 131-132). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  43. Knight, R. (2013). Physics for scientists and engineers (3rd ed., p. 146). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  44. Koyre, A. (1978). The law of falling bodies. In A. Koyre (Ed.), Galileo studies (pp. 65–128). Hassocks, Sussex: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kruger, C.J., Summers, M.K., & Palacio, D.J. (1990). An investigation of some English primary school teachers’ understanding. British Educational Research Journal, 16(4) 383--397.Google Scholar
  46. Kucuk, M. (2005). Examination of different learning levels of students’ and student science teachers’ concepts about gravity. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 2(1), 23--28.Google Scholar
  47. Lee, G. & Yi, J. (2013). Where cognitive conflict arises from?: The structure of creating cognitive conflict. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 601–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lerner, S. L. (1996). Physics (p. 62). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.Google Scholar
  49. Mach, E. (1893/1919). The science of mechanics. A critical and historical account of its development. Chicago, IL: The Open Court.Google Scholar
  50. Mach, E. (1893/1989). The science of mechanics. A critical and historical account of its development. (6th ed) The Open Court, La Salle, Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
  51. Margenau, H. (1950). The role of definitions in science. In The nature of physical reality (pp. 220–244). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  52. Marion, J. B. & Hornyack, W. F. (1982). Physics for science and engineering (Vol. 1, p. 129). New York, NY: Saunders.Google Scholar
  53. Marton, F., Runesson, U. & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). The space of learning. In F. Marton & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom discourse and the space of learning (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Minstrell, J. (1992). Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 110–126). Kiel, Germany: Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  55. Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S. & Wheeler, J. A. (1973). Gravitation. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
  56. Morrison, R. C. (1999). Weight and gravity—The need for consistent definition. The Physics Teacher, 37, 51–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Noce, G., Torosantucci, G., & Vicentini, M. (1988). The floating of objects on the moon: Prediction from a theory or experimental facts? International Journal of Science Education, 10(1), 61.Google Scholar
  58. Novak, J. (1991). Clarify with concept maps: A tool for students and teachers alike. The Science Teacher, 58(7), 45–49.Google Scholar
  59. Nussbaum, J. (1985). The Earth as a cosmic body. In R. Driver, E. Guesne & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 170–192). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Ohanian, H. C. & Ruffini, R. (1994). Gravitation and spacetime. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
  61. Orad, Y. (2001). The world of energy. Science and technology for middle school (p. 373). Ministry of Education and Science Teaching Center at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  62. Orear, J. (1967). Fundamental physics (p. 82). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  63. Reichenbach, H. (1927/1958). The Philosophy of Space and Time. Dover, New York.Google Scholar
  64. Reif, F. (1994). Understanding mechanics. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  65. Ruggiero, S., Cartelli, A., Dupre, F. & Vincentini, M. (1985). Weight, gravity and air pressure: Mental representations by Italian middle school pupils. European Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Coyle, H. P., Cook-Smith, N. & Miller, J. L. (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(10), 1020–1049. doi: 10.3102/0002831213477680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schur, Y. & Galili, I. (2009). A thinking journey—A new mode of teaching science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 627–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sears, F. W. & Zemansky, M. W. (1882). University physics (p. 18, 66). New York, NY: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  69. Stein, H. (2010). The gravitational force in different environments in thinking journey mode of teaching science. PhD thesis. Jerusalem, Israel: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  70. Stein, H., Galili, I., & Schur, Y. (2014). Teaching a new conceptual framework of weight and gravitation in middle school. Submitted to Journal of Science Teaching Research.Google Scholar
  71. Taylor, B. N. & Thompson, A. (Eds.) (2008). The international system of units (SI). NIST Special Publication 330, p. 52.Google Scholar
  72. Taylor, K. (1974). Weight and centrifugal force. Physics Education, 9, 357--360.Google Scholar
  73. Tipler, P. A. & Mosca, G. (2008). Physics for scientists and engineers (pp. 99–100). New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
  74. Young, H. D. & Freedman, R. A. (2008). University physics (pp. 388–390). New York, NY: Pearson, Addison Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Achva Academic CollegeAchvaIsrael
  2. 2.Science Teaching Department, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural ScienceThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations