Research in Science Education

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 267–289 | Cite as

Students' Understandings of Gravity in an Orbiting Space-Ship

  • Manjula D. Sharma
  • Rosemary M. Millar
  • Andrew Smith
  • Ian M. Sefton
Article

Abstract

We report on an investigation of students' ideas about gravity after a semester of instruction in physics at university. There are two aspects to the study which was concerned with students' answers to a carefully designed qualitative examination question on gravity. The first aspect is a classification of the answers and a comparative study of the ways the problem was tackled by two large groups of students who had different backgrounds in physics and were exposed to different teaching styles. The second aspect is to investigate how students link concepts to solve the problem. We used a phenomenographic analysis of student responses to extract patterns of reasoning and alternative conceptions behind the solutions. We found no differences between the classes of answers given by students in the two courses. Our analysis also identifies a hierarchy in the complexity of the hypothetical reasoning pathways, which we interpret as reflecting the ways in which students may link concepts and resolve conflicts as they solve the problem. The hypothetical reasoning pathways may help educators to develop instructional material or lecture room dialogue in order to tease out key issues. An unexpected finding is that there is a discrepancy between our conclusion that the two groups of answers are similar and the distribution of marks awarded by the examiner – which implies that the quality of the answers is different for the two groups.

acceleration and gravity assessment using examination scripts conceptual understanding phenomenographical analysis problem solving qualitative reasoning understanding mechanics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arons, A. B. (1976). Cultivating the capacity for formal reasoning: Objectives and procedures in an introductory physical science course. American Journal of Physics, 44, 834–838.Google Scholar
  2. Arons, A. B. (1984). Student patterns of thinking and reasoning. The Physics Teacher, 22, 88–93.Google Scholar
  3. Bolton, J., & Ross, S. (1997). Developing students' physics problem-solving skills. Physics Education, 32, 176–185.Google Scholar
  4. Boo, H., & Toh, K. (1998). An investigation on the scientific thinking ability of fourth year university students. Research in Science Education, 28, 491–506.Google Scholar
  5. Booth, S. (1997). On phenomenography, learning and teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 16, 135–158.Google Scholar
  6. Caillot, M., & Dumas-Carré, A. (1990). Teaching decision-making to solve textbook problems. In H. Mandl, E. de Corte, N. Bennett, & H. F. Friedrich, (Eds.), Learning and instruction (Vol. 2.2, pp. 67–84). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  7. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 7–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Compton, C. A. (1970). Exercises are not problems. The Physics Teacher, 8, 235–240.Google Scholar
  9. Dall'Alba, G., Walsh, E., Bowden, J., Martin, E., Masters, G., Ramsden, P., et al. (1993). Textbook treatments and students' understanding of acceleration. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 621–635.Google Scholar
  10. de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1986). Cognitive structures of good and poor novice problem solvers in physics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 279–288.Google Scholar
  11. Eylon, B., & Reif, F. (1984). Effects of knowledge organisation on task performance. Cognition and Instruction,7, 5–44.Google Scholar
  12. Galili, I. (1995). Interpretation of students' understanding of the concept of weightlessness. Research in Science Education, 25, 51–74Google Scholar
  13. Galili, I. (2001). Weight versus gravitational force: Historical and educational perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1073–1093.Google Scholar
  14. Galili, I., & Bar, V. (1997). Children's operational knowledge about weight. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 317–340.Google Scholar
  15. Galili, I., & Kaplan, D. (1996). Students' operations with the weight concept. Science Education, 80(4), 457–487.Google Scholar
  16. Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourse. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  17. Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T. (1980). A matter of gravity. Research in Science Education, 10, 35–44.Google Scholar
  18. Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T. (1981). Understanding of gravity. Science Education, 65, 291–299.Google Scholar
  19. Gunstone, R. F., & Watts, M. (1985). Force and motion. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children's ideas in science (pp. 85–104). Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Iona, M. (1988). Weightlessness and microgravity. The Physics Teacher, 26, 72.Google Scholar
  21. Halliday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (1997). Fundamentals of physics, extended (5th ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Heller, K., Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M. (1993). Cooperative group problem solving in physics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  23. Heller, P., & Heller, K. (1999). Cooperative group problem solving in physics.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed/ Research/CGPS/CGPSintro.htmGoogle Scholar
  24. Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 637–644.Google Scholar
  25. Laurillard, D. (1984). Learning from problem solving. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 124–143). Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Leonard, W. J., Dufresne, R. J., & Mestre, J. P. (1996). Using qualitative problem-solving strategies to highlight the role of conceptual knowledge in solving problems. American Journal of Physics, 64, 1495–1503.Google Scholar
  27. Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I-outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.Google Scholar
  28. Marton, F., & Trigwell, K. (2000). Variatio est mater studiorum. Higher Education Research & Development, 19, 381–395.Google Scholar
  29. McDermott, L. C., Shaffer, P. S., & Somers, M. D. (1994). Research as a guide to teaching introductory mechanics: An illustration in the context of the Atwood's machine. American Journal of Physics, 62, 46–54.Google Scholar
  30. McGowan, L. (1987). Down with microgravity. The Physics Teacher, 25, 137.Google Scholar
  31. Minstrell, J. (1982). Conceptual development research in the natural setting of the classroom. In M. B. Rowe (Ed.), Education for the 80's: Science. Washington, DC: National Education AssociationGoogle Scholar
  32. Palmer, D. (2001). Students' alternative conceptions and scientifically acceptable conceptions about gravity. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 691–706.Google Scholar
  33. Prosser, M., & Millar, R. (1989). The how and what of learning physics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4, 513–528.Google Scholar
  34. Reif, F., Larkin, J. H., & Brackett, G. C. (1976). Teaching general learning and problem-solving skills. American Journal of Physics, 44, 212–217.Google Scholar
  35. Ride, S. (1993). Physics in weightlessness. In D. Halliday, R. Resnick, & J. Walker, Fundamentals of physics, extended (4th ed., pp. E3-1 to E3-4). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Rigden, J. S. (1987). Problem-solving skills: What does it mean? American Journal of Physics, 55, 877.Google Scholar
  37. Ruggiero, S., Cartelli, A., Dupré, F., & Vicentini-Missoni, M. (1985). Weight, gravity and air pressure: Mental representations by Italian middle school pupils. European Journal of Science Education, 7, 181–194.Google Scholar
  38. Sharma, M. D., Millar R. M., & Seth, S. (1999). Workshop tutorials: Accommodating student centred learning in large first year university physics classes. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 839–853.Google Scholar
  39. Stables, G. (1973). Weight, g and weightlessness. Physics Education, 8, 61–62.Google Scholar
  40. Svensson, L. (1977). Learning processes and strategies-III on qualitative differences in learning: III-study skill and learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 233–243.Google Scholar
  41. Svensson, L. (1997). Theoretical foundations of phenomenography. Higher Education Research and Development, 16, 159–171.Google Scholar
  42. Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies. American Journal of Physics, 59, 891–897.Google Scholar
  43. Watts, M. (1982). Gravity-don't take it for granted. Physics Education, 17, 116–121.Google Scholar
  44. White, R., Gunstone, R., Elterman, E., Macdonald, I., McKittrick, B., Mills, D., & Mulhall, P. (1995). Students' perceptions of teaching and learning in first-year university physics. Research in Science Education, 25, 465–478.Google Scholar
  45. Zajchowski, R., & Martin, J. (1993). Differences in the problem solving of stronger and weaker novices in physics: Knowledge, strategies, or knowledge structure? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 459–470.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manjula D. Sharma
    • 1
  • Rosemary M. Millar
    • 1
  • Andrew Smith
    • 1
  • Ian M. Sefton
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations