Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 229–244 | Cite as

A Step-by-Step Design and Development of an Integrated Educational Software to Deal with Students' Empirical Ideas about Mechanical Interaction

Abstract

We present the educational software “Interactions between Objects”, which we designed and developed to assist constructive teaching of Newton's 3rd law and Newtonian Dynamics in general. The software was designed on the basis of students' empirical ideas and conceptual difficulties, identified from previous research with Greek students (11–16 years old), the main findings of which are presented. We describe the step-by step design of this software, which aims to help students reconstruct their knowledge in the action–reaction thematic field through a number of experiments, by simulating real everyday life situations of interaction between bodies, modeling those situations by the help of an appropriate didactic method, applying cognitive conflict processes and supporting ‘run my model’ features to promote students' conceptual change in this physics area.

mechanical interactions educational software social constructivism students' empirical ideas cognitive conflict 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brown, D. and Clement, J. (1987a) Misconceptions concerning Newton's law of action and reaction: The underestimated importance of the third law. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics, J. D. Novak (ed.). Cornell University, Ithaca: Vol. III, pp. 39–53.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, D. and Clement, J. (1987b) Overcoming misconceptions in mechanics: A comparison of two example-based teaching strategies. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, pp. 2–35.Google Scholar
  3. Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E., and Eliovitch, R. (1990) Applying the “Cognitive Conflict” strategy for conceptual change - some implications, difficulties and problems. Science Education, 74(5), 555–569.Google Scholar
  4. Driver, R. (1991) Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 481–490.Google Scholar
  5. Driver, R., Guesne, E., and Tiberghien, A. (1985) Children's Ideas in Science. Open University Press, London.Google Scholar
  6. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., and Wood-Robinson, V. (1994) Making Sense in Secondary Science. Research into Children's Ideas. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  7. Halloun, I. and Hestenes, D. (1985) Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1056–1065.Google Scholar
  8. Harknett, R. J. and Cobane, C. T. (1997) Introducing instructional technology to international relations. Political Science and Politics, 30, 496–500.Google Scholar
  9. Hennessy, S., Twigger, D., Driver, R., O'shea, T., O'Malley, C. E., Byard, M., Draper, S., Hartley, R., Mohamed, R., and Scanlon, E. (1995) A classroom intervention using a computer-augmented curriculum for mechanics. International Journal of Science Education, 17(2), 189–206.Google Scholar
  10. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., and Swackhamer, G. (1992) Force Concept Inventory. Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.Google Scholar
  11. Holzl, J. (1997) Twelve tips for effective PowerPoint presentations for the technologically challenged. Medical Teacher, 19, 175–179.Google Scholar
  12. Kokkotas, P. (2000) Didactic Approaches to Science.τυπωθήτω, G. Dardanos, Athens (in Greek).Google Scholar
  13. Koulaidis, V. (1994) Representations of the Physical World: Cognitive, Epistemological and Didactic Approach. Gutenberg, Athens (in Greek).Google Scholar
  14. Lemeignan, G. and Weil-Barais, A. (1993) Construire les concepts en physique. Hachette, Paris.Google Scholar
  15. Lowry, R. B. (1999) Electronic presentation of lectures. Effect upon student performance. University Chemistry Education, 3(1), 18–21.Google Scholar
  16. Maloney, D. P. (1984) Rule governed approaches to physics - Newton's third law. Physics Education, 19, 37–42.Google Scholar
  17. Mikropoulos, T. A. (2000) Educational Software.Kλειδάρδθμος, Athens (in Greek).Google Scholar
  18. Palmer, D. H. (2001) Investigating the relationship between students’ multiple conceptions of action and reaction in cases of static equilibrium. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19(2), 193–204.Google Scholar
  19. Raghavan, K. and Glaser, R. (1995) Model-based analysis and reasoning in science: The MARS curriculum. Science Education, 79, 37–61.Google Scholar
  20. Solomonidou, C. (2000) Conceptual difficulties for a subject always being actual, Newtonian Dynamics. Use of appropriate educational software for constructive teaching. Physics Review, 31, 29–42 (in Greek).Google Scholar
  21. Solomonidou, C. (2001) New Educational Technology. Computers and Learning in the Knowledge Society. Codex editions, Thessaloniki, Greece (in Greek).Google Scholar
  22. Solomonidou, C. and Kolokotronis, D. (2001) Interactions between bodies: Students’ (aged 11- 16) empirical ideas and design of appropriate educational software. Themes in Education, 2(2- 3), 175–210.Google Scholar
  23. Solomonidou, C. and Stavridou, H. (1993) The Newtonian action- reaction concepts: Study of students’ conceptions and didactical confrontation by a new model of teaching-research procedure, Physics Review, 24, 19–29 (in Greek).Google Scholar
  24. Szaboa, A. and Hastingsb, N. (2000) Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers and Education, 35(3), 175–187.Google Scholar
  25. Terry, C. and Jones, G. (1986) Alternative frameworks: Newton's third law and conceptual change. European Journal of Science Education, 8(3), 291–298.Google Scholar
  26. Thornton, R. K. and Sokoloff, D. R. (1998) Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The force and motion evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338–351.Google Scholar
  27. Twigger, D., Byard, M., Driver, R., Draper, S., O'shea, T., Hartley, R., Hennessy, S., Mohamed, R., O'Malley, C., and Scanlon, E. (1994) The conception of force and motion of students aged between 10 and 15 years: An interview study designed to guide instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 215–219.Google Scholar
  28. Viennot, L. (1979a) Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics. European Journal of Science Education, 1(2), 205–221.Google Scholar
  29. Viennot, L. (1979b) Le raisonnement spontané en dynamique élémentaire. Hermann, Paris.Google Scholar
  30. Viennot, L. (1996) Raisonner en physique: la part du sens commun. De Boeck, Louvain la Neuve.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pedagogical Department of Primary EducationUniversity of ThessalyGreece

Personalised recommendations