Abstract
Regular disciplinary instruction of introductory physics at high school often misses a holistic perspective of the subject matter, its structure, and hierarchy. We have considered the domain of classical mechanics as taught at school and provided such a perspective in the form of a summative lecture which frames content in the triadic structure (nucleus-body-periphery)—discipline-culture. To facilitate this approach, we have reviewed the history of mechanics, revealed its origin in the fusion of the theory of motion in natural philosophy with the theory of work devices—mechanics. We discussed a summary lecture after an introductory course in mechanics. We argued for this teaching which promotes cultural content knowledge of classical mechanics stimulates learning about essential aspects of nature of science and scientific knowledge. Furthermore, we report on the experimental lecture which presented mechanics structured as a discipline-culture. The nucleus of mechanics, Newton’s laws of motion, contrasted by conceptual alternatives, emphasized mechanics as a fundamental theory of physics. The students and preservice teachers of our sample reacted positively to the new perspective, expressed engagement and interest. The assessment revealed the beneficial impact of the discipline-culture paradigm even if applied as a short conceptual summary. Beyond the new perspective and affective impact, the lecture served as a delay organizer of students’ knowledge, upgrading it to the cultural content knowledge. Besides knowledge improvement, we were evident to students’ curiosity, both ontological and epistemic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This unification of scientists and engineers may puzzle both the protagonists of the classical gymnasium as well as the technology oriented educators. The two student populations requires different conceptual content.
The titles are reproduced from the books in our possession, though, for brevity, the explicit references are not provided for brevity. They can be easily retrieved if needed.
F = ma is the second Newton’s law (F- exerted force, m – mass, a – acceleration), whereas F = wv (w – weight, v – velocity/speed) could represent the force of motion – impetus, as was understood in medieval physics.
In his terms, it was dunamis (capability, potency) versus energeia or kinesis (actualization). Both terms, however, were modified and changed their meaning in modern science and contemporary physics, becoming dynamics and energy, potential, and kinetic energies. The Aristotelian use of force reminds us of a popular naïve way to state an ability for something: “He has a force to do that….”.
Since human effort often served as a motor, force eventually replaced the use of motor for the strong anthropic association.
Among the major scholars contributed there were Hipparchus, Philoponus, Buridan, Oresme and the Merton school in Oxford.
Among the scholars who contributed to the development of kinematics were Oresme in Paris and the Merton school scholars in Oxford (e.g. Pedersen & Pihl, 1974).
Among the prominent contributors to the development of statics were Jordanus Nemorarius, Leonardo da Vinci, Stevin (e.g. Pedersen & Pihl, 1974).
In effect, the start of mathematization of physics by Galileo was proceeded by making physics rigorously mathematical in the hands of his great followers, first of all, Newton (Truesdell, 1968, p.179).
Newton also pointed to the advantages of his approach to motion over mechanics by using mathematical proof, i.e., drawing on axioms provided by geometry (Truesdell, 1968, p.179).
The term Dynamics was introduced by Leibniz, as will be elaborated with regard to the concept of force.
Newton’s examples supplied to the First Law are not mentioned in regular textbooks. Drawing on the Motte-Cajory translation, Westfall commented (Westfall, 1971, p. 4): “Galileo demonstrated that the trajectory of a projectile is a parabola. Small wonder that Newton mistook such a conception for his first law of motion.” In light of the corrected translation, there is no reason to state that Newton erred in all the three examples that he brought.
Taken verbatim, this formulation corresponds to the equivalent form of \(a=\frac{F}{m}\). Euler never called this statement Newton’s Second Law, but rather claimed it as his own “new principle of mechanics” (Truesdell, 1968, p. 170).
According to Koyre (1968, p. 66), also Polak (1989), Newton struggled hard with concept definitions in a sequence of several (“five or six”) attempts. Westfall (1971, Ch. VIII) depicted in great detail several attempts of Newton, all different intermediate forms in his works De Motu, De Gravitatione and others, the process took about 20 years in which the final form of the definitions and dynamics laws was eventually produced.
It is obvious that translation is inseparable from interpretation, and thus, it is not automatic, univocal, and never knowledge independent. It is a huge problem in philosophy (e.g., Schalow, 2011, Preface). Physics, however, possesses a bypass warranty against such distortion of meaning and losing ideas. It may take time, but the subsequent discourse and multiple applications eventually bring the refinement of meaning and preserve the essence of the original concept, especially through its operational interpretation. Therefore, the metamorphose of the First Law in its translation from Latin had no dramatic influence on the following development of physics besides ascribing to Newton certain imperfection that were not deserved.
This development reflected the fundamental change of thought in physics brought by the Special and General theories of relativity which introduced an observer as the central concept of modern physics.
No discussion clarifying the status of a “postulate” in physics (often stated to be an “empirical science”!) followed.
Like in the case of planets, the horizontal motion is presumed to be circular.
These were the physical forces that are directly related to observed reality. In the vision of Leibniz, they were underlined by hidden reality – metaphysical primitives. On that level, Leibniz involved the ideas of organisms and monads which resulted from pure philosophical speculations (McDonough, 2019). We may ignore this in our context.
Centrifugal tension was introduced by Descartes (1644) under the name of conatus. It corresponds to the normal force in modern terms.
The title of his pertinent study of 1695 was Specimen Dynamicum.
The lack of understanding of the way force is transmitted over distance eventually inspired the introduction of the forcefield. It happened in the nineteenth century, in the Faraday-Maxwell theory of electromagnetism. Though the field concept removed the mysterious action through the void, it remained a formal model without any mechanism showing how it takes place.
The metaphor of an observer in a moving ship and the claims of unperceived motion by the passenger is much older and was used by the pioneers of relativity, Buridan, Oresme, Cusanus in medieval science, and by Giordano Bruno in 1584 (Clagett, 1959, pp. 587, 595, 607; Angelis & Espirito Santo, 2015).
None of the Newtonian laws was termed as such by Lagrange. This phenomenon, social, or historical, was seemingly preserved in school textbooks in France (e.g., Bourdais et al., 1989).
Both these contact forces had already been investigated by Leonardo da Vinci, but his results remained unknown to physicists until late in the nineteenth century (e.g. Truesdell, 1968, pp. 9–13).
However, it is known that in a logically consistent system of postulated and deduced statements, one can invert the status between the claims. Thus, in Mazur (2015, p. 229), the conservation laws of momentum, preceded Newton’s Second Law: force is quantitatively defined as “the time rate of change in the object’s momentum, the First law is inferred (p. 233) and so the Second and the Third Laws (p. 243).”.
Westfall (1971, p. 512) while summarizing this development of the force concept, its rise and “fall,” pathetically exclaimed: Sic transit gloria mundi! (This way passes the world glory… Latin). It could be used to enhance the affective impact of teaching mechanics.
Curiously, at the same time, Lagrange did not mention Newton’s laws explicitly by names. This tradition is seemingly preserved in physics textbooks in French (e.g., Bourdais et al., 1989).
Euclidean 3-dimensional space and absolute time were replaced by the 4-dimensional space–time described by non-Euclidian geometry.
Importantly, these areas of validity are not well separated but overlay.
We examined a broad sample of more than 40 physics textbooks of university, college, high school levels in English (USA and UK) and several parallel texts in Russian and Hebrew.
This approach often presents domains—optics, sound, atoms, heat, mechanics, and electricity. Though informative regarding phenomena and appliances, no fundamental theory is revealed as a hierarchical structure. Newton’s laws appear in a line, deep inside the course without area of validity (e.g., Dunkan, 1995).
Dewey is often used to justify diminishing scientific theories in education. Though he wrote (Dewey, 1938, p. 80): “It is absurd, then, to argue that processes similar to those studied in laboratories and institutes of research are not a part of the daily life experience of the young and hence do not come within the scope of education based upon experience. … learners may gradually be led, through extraction of facts and laws, to experience of a scientific order….” it is equally true that the total rejection of theoretical framework causes deficient education.
The instrumentalist vision of knowledge discovery is addressed by Dewey (1929, p. 2a).
In this sense, Dewey’s vision of the scholar–nature inquiry dialogue is oversimplified and potentially misleading curriculum designers. Its verbatim adoption may produce ineffective pedagogy of praising individual discovery regardless of the background knowledge which is essential in true science.
e.g., Margenau (1950, pp. 220–244) presents complementarity of operational and nominal concept definitions.
For Newton, centripetal and centrifugal forces were defined as action-reaction pair. This account contrasted with Huygens’ understanding of vis centrifuga and the modern perspective.
The ability of students to master the force account by different observers was shown feasible already in middle school (Stein et al. 2019).
e.g., Hecht (1996) stated forces to be a program of unifying physics all together, in all its domains.
Mazur (2015) presents a rare exempt of an undergraduate course in which the fundamentals are the conservation laws for energy and momentum, and the Newton laws are deduced.
The lack of conceptual knowledge is often expressed as “fear of mathematics.” Actually, it is not about mathematics but about its meaning in physics. The same students are often successful in math class.
It is educative to mention that the correct account of projectile motion in medium can provide a trajectory similar to that in the medieval theory of motion (Rovelli, 2015). It could not be different as the scholars always seek similarity with the observed. That, however, does not imply conceptual and quantitate correctness.
For simplicity, which is required at the introductory level of teaching, we address the non-relativistic quantum theory as taught in the underground course of quantum mechanics.
The difference in the scope of physics teaching and the history of physics, the benefit to the former can be appreciated from the remarkable study by Westfall (1971). Depicting the contribution of Hooke (pp. 209–213) is conceptually precious, while the numerous details in the progress of Newtonian thought is informative, but less relevant for teaching. It illustrates the painstaking creation of his Principia, far from a single-step discovery. Historical knowledge equips the conceptual diachronic discourse. Appendix 1 illustrates this interaction with regard to the concept of force.
Ascribing to da Vinci the law of friction is rare. It states the friction being in direct proportion to the pressing (normal) force (e.g., Capra, 2007, p. 182). The laws of friction, rediscovered by Amontos, appear without name in physics teaching.
This treatment is free from the already mentioned circularity of force definition in the common teaching of modified after Newton laws of motion (Arons, 1997, p. 59).
Ignoring this limitation of the introductory course was empirically shown as encouraging students’ misconceptions of inertial/motion forces (Galili & Kaplan, 2002).
This holds in common introductory courses of CM. In more advanced courses, the affiliation is reversed. In the university level course by Mazur (2015), the presentation starts from energy and momentum conservation from which other concepts are deduced, including Newton’s laws of motion.
As was already mentioned, our “delay organizer” contrasts “advance organizer” by Ausubel (1968, pp. 148–152). We argue for benefits of the specific reviewing of the given disciplinary course. An advance organizer is often used in physics courses to provide students with necessary tools, mathematical, conventional, epistemological, etc. (e.g., Hecht, 1996, Ch. 1; Mazur, 2015, Chapter 1). Our product is essentially different.
This contradicts the common idea of approximation: “Then, Albert Einstein proved that the world view on which it was based is wrong; Newtonian Mechanics is a brilliant approximation of a more complete truth.” (Hecht, 1996, p. 3). Or, regarding time: “the notion of absolute time remains an excellent approximation.”.
Some introductory courses even replace the title “Physics” with “Energy and its transformations” to look more relevant to our life, social needs…
Book 2 of the Principia presents this dialogue.
In Hecht (1996), forces establish an overall framework including modern physics.
These contents drew on the historical review provided above.
The correlation between the high school and college students in the pretest result of 20 questions was found as rpre = 0.591 and in the posttest rpost = 0.649, which testifies for the large correlation in both cases (e.g., https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/pearson-correlation-coefficient-statistical-guide.php).
This result could be compared to the reported improvement of 15% caused by the advance organizer in a different research (Kapri, 2017).
The codification attached to each quotation specifies the sample group of the participant (Table 1) and includes reference to the settings, questions Q, and comments LC where the particular data were collected.
The answers exposed here were translated into English. Naturally, they may lose their colloquial character, but preserved their meaning.
Vygotsky (1934/1986) interpreted a similar process of consolidating knowledge, still hidden, and immature, which easily comes to the surface in response to the teaching appropriately directed to the so-called zone of proximate development (ZPD) in individual cognition.
W. Heisenberg in Dialectica, 2, 1948, p. 333f, quoted in Popper (1963/2002, p. 152).
NOS, nature of science (Galili, 2019).
People usually have to act in the environment of open questions, not fully known phenomena, that is at various levels of uncertainty. Science provides the-best-we-can guidance in such real situations, e.g., Matthews (2021).
It was postponed to another experiment.
As was mentioned, many textbooks presume it intuitively clear.
See the section Theoretical implications… above.
References
Angelis, A. D., & Espirito Santo, C. (2015). The contribution of Giordano Bruno to the principle of relativity. Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage, 18(3), 241–248.
Aristotle. (1952). Physics. Britannica Great Books. Encyclopedia Britannica.
Armogathe, J.-R. (2008). Deus legislator. In L. Daston & M. Stolleis (Eds.), Natural law and laws of nature in early modern Europe: Jurisprudence, theology, moral and natural philosophy (pp. 265–277). Ashgate.
Arons, A. (1997). Teaching introductory physics. Wiley.
Ausubel, P. D. (1968). Educational psychology a cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bourdais, J., Blumeau, M., & Dubouc, J. (1989). Physique Terminales C et E. Bordas.
Capra, F. (2007). The science of Leonardo. Anchor books.
Clagett, M. (1959). The science of mechanics in the middle ages. The University of Wisconsin Press.
Cohen, I. B. (1971). Introduction to Newton’s Principia (pp. XVI, 28). Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, I. B. (2004). Newton’s concepts of force and mass, with notes on the Laws of Motion. In I. B. Cohen & G. E. Smith (Eds.), The cambridge companion to Newton (pp. 57–84). Cambridge University Press.
Crombie, A. C. (1959). Medieval and early modern science. Doubleday Anchor Books.
Descartes, R. (1644/1982). Principles of philosophy. D. Reidel
Dewey, J. (1929). Experience and nature. George Allen & Unwin.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Touchstone, Simon & Schuster.
Dijksterhuis, E. J. (1986). The mechanization of the world picture. Pythagoras to Newton. Princeton University Press.
Dugas, R. (1988). A history of mechanics. Dover.
Dunkan, T. (1995). GCSE physics. John Murray.
Dyck, M. V. (2018). Renaissance idea of natural law. In M. Sgarbi (Ed.), Encyclopedia of renaissance philosophy (pp. 1–10). Springer.
Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1938). Evolution of physics. Cambridge University Press.
Eisenkraft, A., Nordine, J., Chen, R. F., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Neumann, K., & Scheff, A. (2014). Introduction: Why focus on energy instruction. In R. F. Chen, A. Eisenkraft, D. Fortus, J. Krajcik, K. Neumann, J. Nordine, & A. Scheff (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp. 1–14). Springer.
Encyclopedia Britannica (1771). First Edition, Vol. 3. Bell & Marcfarcuhar.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Springer.
Euler, L. (1765/2009). Theory of the motion of solid or rigid bodies. Vol. 1. Ch. 4. Retrieved April 17, 2022, from http://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/euler/mechvol3/genmotch4.pdf
Galilei, G. (1632/1953). Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems – Ptolemaic and Copernican. University of California Press.
Galilei, G. (1638/1914). Dialogue concerning two new sciences. Dover.
Galili, I., & Bar, V. (1992). Motion implies force. Where to expect vestiges of the misconception? International Journal of Science Education, 14(1), 63–81.
Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2004). Optics - the theory of light and vision in the broad cultural approach. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Galili, I., & Kaplan, D. (2002). Students interpretation of water surface orientation and inertial forces in physics curriculum. Praxis Der Naturwissenschaften Physik in Der Schule, 51(7), 2–11.
Galili, I., & Tseitlin, M. (2003). Newton’s first law: Text, translations, interpretations, and physics education. Science and Education, 12(1), 45–73.
Galili, I. (2001). Weight versus gravitational force: Historical and educational perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1073–1093.
Galili, I. (2012). Promotion of content cultural knowledge through the use of the history and philosophy of science. Science & Education, 21(9), 1283–1316.
Galili, I. (2014). Teaching optics: A historico-philosophical perspective. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history and philosophy for science and mathematics education (pp. 97–128). Springer.
Galili, I. (2019). Towards a refined depiction of nature of science. Applications to Physics Education. Science & Education, 28(3–5), 503–537.
Galili, I. (2021). Scientific knowledge considered as a culture – The pleasure of understanding. Springer.
Galili, I., Bar, V., & Brosh, Y. (2017). Teaching weight-gravity and gravitation in middle school—Testing a new instructional approach. Science & Education, 25(9–10), 977–1010.
Goldstein, H., Poole, Ch., & Safko, J. (2001). Classical mechanics. Addison Wisley.
Grant, E. (1977). Physical science in the middle ages. Cambridge University Press.
Hecht, E. (1996). Physics. Brooks/Cole.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press.
Heisenberg, W. (1959/1971). Physics and philosophy. The revolution in modern science. Harper.
Jammer, M. (1957). Concepts of force. Harvard University Press.
Kant, E. (1781/1952). The critique of pure reason. Britannica Great Books, Vol. 42. The University of Chicago Press.
Kapri, U. C. (2017). Effectiveness of advance organizer model over conventional methods of teaching of science at secondary level. International Journal of Research – Granthaalayah, 5(7), 193–198.
Knight, R. D. (2013). Physics for scientists and engineers. Pearson.
Koyré, A. (1968). Newtonian studies. The University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, Th. (1962/1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Lagrange, J. L. (1788/1997). Analytical mechanics. Springer Science.
Landau, L. D. & Lifshitz, E. M. (1960). Mechanics. Course of Theoretical Physics. Vol.1. Pergamum Press.
Lederman, N. G., Schwartz, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2015). Conceptualizing the construct of NOS. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 694–698). Springer.
Levrini, O., Bertozzi, E., Gagliardi, M., Grimellini-Tomasini, N., Pecori, B., Tasquier, G., & Galili, I. (2014). Meeting the discipline-culture framework of physics knowledge: An experiment in Italian secondary school. Science & Education, 23, 1701–1731.
Lindberg, D. C. (1992). The beginnings of the Western science. The University of Chicago Press.
Mach, E. (1883/1989). The science of mechanics, a critical and historical account of its development. Open Court.
Margenau, H. (1950). The role of definitions in science. In: The nature of physical reality. McGraw Hill.
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). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Matthews, M. (2021). Trust in science: The silence of constructivism in Covid times. Springer.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Prentice Hall.
Mazur, E. (2015). Principles & practice of physics. Pearson.
McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 53–70). Kluwer.
McDermott, L., & Redish, E. F. (1999). Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research. American Journal of Physics, 67, 755.
McDermott, L. C. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. American Institute of Physics.
McDonough, J. K. (2019). Leibniz’s philosophy of physics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved June 20, 2021 from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-physics
Newton, I. (1687/1934). Mathematical principles of natural philosophy. University of California Press. Translated by A. Motte and revised by F. Cajory.
Newton, I. (1687/1936/1989). Mathematical principles of natural philosophy. Translated into Russian by A.N. Krylov. Nauka.
Newton, I. (1687/1999). The Principia. Mathematical principles of natural philosophy. Translated by B. Cohen & A. Whitman. University of California Press.
Ohanian, H. C. (1989). Physics. W.W. Norton.
Pedersen, O., & Pihl, M. (1974). Early physics and astronomy. McDonald & Janes.
Polak, L. S. (1989). Introduction. In Newton, I., Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (pp. 11–12). Nauka.
Popper, K. (1963/2002). Conjectures and refutations. The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge.
Popper, K. R. (1959/2002). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
Redish, E., & Kuo, E. (2015). Language of physics, language of math: Disciplinary culture and dynamic epistemology. Science & Education, 24, 561–590.
Reichenbach, H. (1928/1958). The philosophy of space and time. Dover.
Reif, F. (1995a). Understanding basic mechanics. Willey.
Reif, F. (1995b). Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes. American Journal of Physics, 63(1), 17–32.
Rogers, E. M. (1960). Physics for inquiring mind. Princeton University Press.
Rovelli, C. (2015). Aristotle’s physics: A Physicist’s look. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 1(1), 23–40. arXiv:1312.4057.
Rozen, A. & Lehavi, Y. (2014). Exploring energy: Processes and systems. Physics Textbook for Middle schools (Grade 9). Weizmann Institute of Science.
Russo, L. (2004). The forgotten revolution: How science was born in 300 B.C. and why it had to be reborn. Springer.
Rutherford, F. J., Holton, G., & Watson, F. G. (1972). The project physics course. Holt, Rinehard & Winston.
Schalow, F. (2011). Heidegger, translation, and the task of thinking. Springer.
Serway, R. A., Vuille, C., & Faugh, J. S. (2008). College physics. Brooks/Cole.
Shore, S. N. (2008). Forces in physics: A historical perspective. Greenwood Press.
Simonyi, K. (2012). A cultural history of physics. A K Peters/CRC Press.
Snow, C. P. (1962). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge University Press.
Stein, B., Stein, H., & Galili, I. (2019). Teaching middle school physics in Observer-dependence approach: Pedagogical and curricular aspects. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 1287(1), 012009.
Taylor, E. F., & Wheeler, J. A. (1992). Spacetime physics. Freeman.
Taylor, W. (1959). Physics the pioneer science. Dover.
Thornton, S. (2016). Karl Popper. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved on August 18, 2017, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper
Truesdell, C. (1968). Essays in the history of mechanics. Springer-Verlag.
Tseitlin, M., & Galili, I. (2005). Teaching physics in looking for its self: From a physics-discipline to a physics-culture. Science & Education, 14(3–5), 235–261.
Tseitlin, M., & Galili, I. (2006). Science teaching: What does it mean? - A simple semiotic perspective. Science & Education, 15(5), 393–417.
Viennot, L. (1979). Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics. European Journal of Science Education, 1(2), 205–221.
Vinner, S. (1997). The pseudo-conceptual and the pseudo-analytical thought processes in mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34(2), 97–129.
Vygotsky, L. (1934/1986). Thought and language. MIT Press.
Westfall, R. S. (1971). Force in Newton’s physics. Macdonald.
Young, H. D., & Freedman, R. A. (2004). University physics. Addison Wesley.
Young, H. D. (2012). Sears & Zemansky’s college physics. Addison-Wesley.
Acknowledgements
It is our pleasure to thank Prof. Avraham Gal and Prof. Vilen Zevin of the Racach Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for their kind support which made possible this publication
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
As was mentioned in the text, the concept of force received a lot of attention from historians of science. The abundance of the relevant materials accumulated in historical studies creates the challenge of presenting an inclusive image of the diachronic discourse on the subject of force in physics class. As a slide, it can appear in the course of summarizing lecture on Classical Mechanics.
Figure 8
The diachronic discourse regarding the nature of the force concept
Appendix 2
Table 6
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Galili, I., Goren, E. Summary Lecture as a Delay Organizer of Cultural Content Knowledge. Sci & Educ 32, 737–786 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00348-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00348-w