Journal of Adult Development

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 139–150

University Students' Conceptions of Different Physical Phenomena

  • Eve Kikas
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine how widespread university students' misconceptions of 3 physical phenomena were: namely, the motions of objects, seasonal changes, and aggregate changes of matter. One hundred and thirty-two university students completed a written questionnaire composed of 2 types of tasks. First, students evaluated the adequacy of a given explanation as compared to their knowledge of the contemporary scientific explanation. Four types of explanations were provided—a simple description, 2 explanations with misconceptions, and a scientific explanation. Second, students were asked solve different problems. The results of the second part confirmed previous findings about misconceptions (e.g., usage of impetus and distance theories). However, the results of the evaluation tasks showed more heterogeneity in students' understanding. Students preferred causal explanations but not simple descriptions; they gave the highest evaluation to the scientifically correct explanations.

misconceptions scientific concepts heterogeneity of concepts university students 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albanese, A., & Vicentini, M. (1997). Why do we believe that an atom is colourless? Reflections about the teaching of the particle model. Science and Education, 6, 251–261.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, T., Howe, Ch., & Tolmie, A. (1996). Interaction and mental models of physics phenomena: Evidence from dialogues between learners. In J. Oakhill & A. Garnham (Eds.), Mental models in cognitive science. Essays in honour of Phil Johnson-Laird (pp. 247–273). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, T., Tolmie, A., Howe, Ch., Mayes, T., & Mackenzie, Mh. (1992). Mental models of motion. In Y. Rogers A. Rutherford & P. Bibby (Eds.), Models of the mind: Theory, perspective and applications (pp. 57–71). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Atwood, R. K., & Atwood, V. A. (1996). Preservice elementary teachers' conceptions of the causes of seasons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 553–563.Google Scholar
  5. Baxter, J. (1995). Children's understanding of astronomy and Earth sciences. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools (pp. 155–178). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Bliss, J., & Ogborn, J. (1994). Force and motion from the beginning. Learning and Instruction, 4, 7–25.Google Scholar
  7. Brewer, W., Chinn, C., & Samarapungavan, A. (2000). Explanation in scientists and children. In F. Keil & R. Wilson (Eds.), Explanation and cognition (pp. 279–298). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chi, M. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Minnesota studies in philosophy of science: Vol. 15. Cognitive models of science (pp. 129–187). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chi, M., Slotta, J., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual changes. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43.Google Scholar
  10. Chinn, C., & Brewer, W. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49.Google Scholar
  11. Clement, J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66–71.Google Scholar
  12. Cooke, N., & Breedin, S. (1994). Constructing naive theories of motion on the fly. Memory and Cogniton, 22, 474–493.Google Scholar
  13. DiSessa, A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105–225.Google Scholar
  14. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12.Google Scholar
  15. Galili, I., & Bar, V. (1992). Motion implies force: Where to expect vestiges of the misconception? International Journal of Science Education, 14, 63–81.Google Scholar
  16. Garnett, P., Garnett, P., & Hackling, M. (1995). Students' alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, 69–95.Google Scholar
  17. Glynn, S. M., & Duit, R. (Eds.). (1995). Learning science in the schools. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Griffiths, A. (1994). A critical analysis and synthesis of research on students' chemistry misconceptions. In H.-J. Schmidt (Ed.), Problem solving and misconceptions in chemistry and physics. Proceedings of the 1994 International Symposium (pp. 70–99). Hong Kong: ICASE.Google Scholar
  19. Griffiths, A., & Preston, K. (1992). Grade-12 students' misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 611–628.Google Scholar
  20. Kikas, E. (1998). Pupils' explanations of seasonal changes: Age differences and the influence of teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 505–516.Google Scholar
  21. Kikas, E. (2000). The influence of teaching on students' explanations and illustrations of the day/night cycle and seasonal changes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 281–295.Google Scholar
  22. Kuiper, J. (1994). Student ideas of science concepts: Alternative frameworks? International Journal of Science Education, 16, 279–292.Google Scholar
  23. McCloskey, M. (1983). Naïve theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299–332). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Montanero, M., Perez, A., & Suero, M. (1995). A survey of students' understanding of colliding bodies. Physics Education, 30, 277–283.Google Scholar
  25. Mortimer, E. (1995). Conceptual change or conceptual profile change? Science and Education, 4, 267–285.Google Scholar
  26. Mortimer, M. (1998). Multivoicedness and univocality in classroom discourse: An example from theory of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 67–82.Google Scholar
  27. Ojala, J. (1992). The third planet. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 191–200.Google Scholar
  28. Ojala, J. (1997). Lost in space? The concepts of planetary phenomena held by trainee primary school teachers. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 6, 183–203.Google Scholar
  29. Pozo, J., & Carretero, M. (1994). Causal theories, reasoning strategies, and conflict resolution by experts and novices in Newtonian mechanics. In H. Demetriou M. Shayer & A. Efklides (Eds.), Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development: Implications and applications for education (pp. 231–255). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Rowlands, S., Graham, T., & Berry, J. (1999). Can we speak of alternative frameworks and conceptual change in mechanics? Science and Education, 8, 241–271.Google Scholar
  31. Schnotz, W., Vosniadou, S., & Carretero, M. (Eds.). (1999). New perspectives on conceptual change. Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  32. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Verschaffel, L., De Corte, D., & Borghart, I. (1997). Pre-service teachers' conceptions and beliefs about the role of real-world knowledge in mathematical modelling of school word problems. Learning and Instruction, 7, 339–359.Google Scholar
  34. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45–69.Google Scholar
  35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The development of academic concepts in school aged children. In R. Van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 355–370). Oxford: Blackwell. (Original work published 1934)Google Scholar
  36. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Thought and language (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eve Kikas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations