Skip to main content
Log in

The conceptualization of cases of physical motion

Conceptualisations de différents cas de mouvement en physique

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The question addressed in the present article concerns the contextual character of students’ conceptions of cases of psysical motion. An interview investigation with students following the mechanical engineering line of study at Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden was carried out during the students’ first year of study, before and after their first course in Mechanics. In the interviews, the students were verbally presented with eight cases of physical motion, four before and four after the course. The analysis of the conceptualization of physical motion points clearly to the very restricted contextual character of the conceptions of the cases.

In previous research, the tradition of describing thinking and knowledge in terms of cognitive structures, shemas, models and so on, is very dominant. In relation to our results, one problem with the focus on cognitive structures is the assumptions made about generality across case or instances. Also, the students’ starting-point for their reasoning about the cases is not in any conceptual framework but in the specific cases. The conceptualizations are related to the students’ previous experiences rather than to any clearly delimited and structured conceptual framework.

Résumé

Le problème traité dans cet article concerne le caractère général ou contextuel des conceptions physiques qu’ont les étudiants à propos du mouvement. Des étudiants suédois sont interviewés au début de leurs études d’ingénieur, avant et aprés un cours de mécanique. Les entretients portent sur huit cas particuliers de mouvement; quatre sont présentés avant le cours et quatre aprés. L’analyse des conceptualisations avancées par les sujets met en évidence le caractère local et contextualisé de leurs explications.

Les travaux antérieurs mettaient l’accent sur des structures de connaissances générales, schémas, modèles mentaux etc… Nos résultats ne confirment pas l’hypothèse de structures cognitives qui offriraient un cadre de référence unique à l’interprétation de différents cas spécifiques de mouvements. En revanche les expériences antérieures des sujets, relativement à chaque cas présenté, constituent des connaissances auxquels ils font appels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Clement, J. (1982). Student preconceptions in introductory mechanics.American Journal of Physics, 50, 66–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students’ conceptual frameworks in science.Studies in Science Education, 10, 37–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R. (1987a). Research on students’ alternative frameworks in science: Topics, theoretical frameworks, consequences for science teaching. Kiel: Institute for Science Education, University of Kiel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R. (1987b). Research on students’ conceptions in science-perspectives from the Federal Republic of Germany. Kiel: Institute for Science Education, University of Kiel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, B., Marton, F., & Svensson, L. (1985). An approach to describing learning as change between qualitatively different conceptions. In L. H. T. West & A. C. Pines (Eds.),Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change (pp. 233–257). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography: describing conceptions of the world around us.Instructional Science, 10, 177–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1986). Bibliography. Students’ alternative frameworks and science education. Kiel: Institute for Science Education, University of Kiel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosser, M., & Millar, R. (1990). The “how” and “what” of learning physics. (Manuscript to be published in the present issue).

  • Svensson, L. (1986). Three approaches to descriptive research. In P. D. Ashworth, A. Giorgi & A. J. J. de Koning (Eds.),Qualitative Research in Psychology (pp. 23–46). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, L., & Hogfors, C. (1988). Conceptions as the content of teaching: Improving education in Mechanics. In P. Ramsden (Ed.),Improving learning. New perspectives (pp. 162–177). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in development.Review of Educational research, 57, 51–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, L. H. T., & Pines, A. L. (Eds.) (1985).Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

The research reported here has been financially supported by grants from the Swedish National Board of Universities and Colleages.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Svensson, L. The conceptualization of cases of physical motion. Eur J Psychol Educ 4, 529 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172715

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172715

Key words

Navigation