Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Misconceptions of Turkish Pre-Service Teachers about Force and Motion

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to diagnose the misconceptions held by pre-service physics teachers about force and motion. The secondary aim of the study was to detect whether misconceptions vary according to gender, educational level, and culture. The study was conducted with 79 student-teachers attending to one of the largest faculties of education in Turkey. Force Concept Inventory (FCI) was used to diagnose student-teachers’ misconceptions. FCI is a conceptual test consisting of 29 multiple choice items. Each wrong choice for each question reflects a specific misconception about the force and motion concepts. Data from the study was analyzed by using frequencies, t-test, and ANOVA for making comparisons according to gender and years of education. Results of the study showed that student-teachers of physics hold very strong misconceptions about impetus and active force. No significant differences were found between male and female students’ scores on the concept test. The results also showed that misconceptions about force and motion decreased through the years of education. However, they did not disappear completely. Findings of the study are very similar to the other research findings conducted on the subject in other countries. Student-teachers’ conceptions about Newton’s Third Law, on the other hand, were significantly better than those observed in other research done in other countries such as the US and Finland.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bar, V. & Zinn, B. (1998). Similar frameworks of action at a distance: Early scientists’ and pupils’ ideas. Science & Education, 7(5), 471–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhard, J. (2000). Can a combination of hands-on experiments and computers facilitate better learning in mechanics? Retrieved from web: http://www.itn.liu.se/~jonbe/.

  • Bogdanov, S. & Viiri, J. (1999). Students’ understanding of the force concept in Russia and Finland. In M. Komorek, H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, & A. Kross (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Kiel, August 1999.

  • Cayhadi, V. (2004). The effect of interactive engagement teaching on student understanding of introductory physics at the faculty of engineering, University of Surabaya, Indonesia. Higher Education Research & Development, 23, 455–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, S.K. & Andre T. (1997). Gender, prior knowledge, interest, and experience in electricity and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caramazza, A., McCloskey, M. & Green, B. (1981). Naive beliefs in ‘sophisticated’ subjects: Misconceptions about trajectories of motion. Cognition, 9, 117–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finegold, M. & Gorsky, P. (1988). Learning about force: Simulating the outcomes of pupils’ misconceptions. Instructional Science, 17, 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, G. M. (1992). Gender differences in school science examinations. Studies in Science Education, 20, 87–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J.K. & Zylbersztajn, A. (1985). A conceptual framework for science education: The case study of force and movement. European Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 107–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruswammy, C., Somers, M.D. & Hussey, R.G. (1997). Students’ understanding of the transfer of charge between conductors. Physics Education, 32(2), 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guisasola, J., Almud’i, J. & Zubimendi, J. (2004). Difficulties in learning the introductory magnetic field theory in the first years of university. Science Education, 88, 443–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunstone, R.F. (1987). Student understanding in mechanics: A large population survey. American Journal of Physics, 55, 691–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunstone, R.F. & White, R. (1981). Understanding of gravity. Science Education, 65, 291–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzetti, B.J., Snyder, T.E., Glass, G.V., & Gamas, W.S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 117–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, O. & Ahtee, M. (2007). The durability of conceptual change in learning the concept of weight in the case of a pulley in balance. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(3), 461–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halloun, I.A. & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1056–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D. (1996). More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research. American Journal of Physics, 64, 1316–1325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B. & Treagust, D.F. (1991). Student achievement and science curriculum development using a constructive framework. School Science and Mathematics, 91, 172–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M. & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe, A.C. & Jones, L. (1998). Engaging Children in Science (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ireson, G. (2000). The quantum understanding of pre-university physics students. Physics Education, 35(1), 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, C., Palacio, D. & Summers, M. (1992). Surveys of English primary school teachers’ conceptions of force, energy and materials. Science Education, 76(4), 339–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A.E. (1995). Science Teaching and the Development of Thinking. Belmont CA: Watsworth Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrenz, F. (1986). Misconceptions of physical science concepts among elementary school teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 86, 654–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leite, L., Mendoza, J. & Borsese, A. (2007). Teachers’ and prospective teachers’ explanations of liquid-state phenomena: A comparative study involving three European countries. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 349–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, D.P. (1994). Research on problem solving: Physics. In Gabel, & L. Dorothy (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M. & Kohl, D. (1983). Naive physics? The curvilinear impetus principle and its role in interactions with moving objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Memory and Cognition, 9, 146–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining the ‘at rest’ condition of an object. The Physics Teacher, 20, 10–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakhleh, M.B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakleh, M.B. & Samarapungavan, A. (1999). Elementary school children’s beliefs about matte. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 777–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, D.H. & Flanagan, R.B. (1997). Readiness to change the conception that “Motion-Implies-Force”: A comparison of 12-year-old and 16-year-old Students. Science Education, 81, 317–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quiles-Pardo, J. & Solaz-Portole’s, J.J. (1995). Students and teachers misapplication’ of Le Chatelier’s Principle: Implications for the teaching of chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 32, 939–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reach, L.E. (1992). Demonstrating Newton’s Third Law. The Science Teacher, 59(9), 28–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenquist, M.L. & McDermott, L.C. (1987). A conceptual approach to teaching mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 407–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadanand, N. & Kess, J. (1990). Concepts in force and motion. The Physics Teacher, 28(8), 503–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saul, J. & Redish, E. (1998). A comparison of pre- and post-FCI. Results for innovative and traditional introductory calculus-based physics classes. AAPT Announcer, 28, 80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savinainen, A. & Scott, P. (2002). Using the Force Concept Inventory to monitor student learning and to plan teaching. Physics Education, 37(1), 53–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svec, M.T., Boone, W.J. & Olmer, C. (1995). Changes in a pre-service elementary teachers’ physics course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(2), 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tao, P. & Gunstone, R.F. (1999). The Process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 859–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thijs, G. & Van Den Berg, E. (1994). Cultural factors in the origin and remediation of alternative frameworks in physics. Science and Education, 4(4), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). (1996). TIMSS Report, Washington, D. C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

  • Trowbridge, D.E. & McDermott, L.C. (1980). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 48, 1020–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trumper, R. (1999). A Longitudinal study of physics students’ conceptions of force in pre-service training for high school teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 22(2/3), 247–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trumper, R. (2000). A cross-college age study about physics students’ conceptions of force in pre-service training for high school teachers. Curriculum Matters, 227–238.

  • Trumper, R. & Gorsky, P. (1997). A survey of biology students’ conceptions of force in pre-service training for high school teachers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 15(2), 133–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trumper, R., Raviolo, A. & Shnersch, A. (2000). A cross cultural survey of conceptions of energy among elementary school teachers in training: Empirical results from Israel and Argentina. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 697–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trundle, K.C., Atwood, R.K. & Christopher, J.E. (2007). A longitudinal study of conceptual change: Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of moon phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 303–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C.C. (1999). Overcoming junior high school students’ misconceptions about microscopic views of phase change: A study of an analogy activity. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viiri, J. (1996). Teaching the force concept: a constructivist teaching experiment in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 21, 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D.M. & Zylbersztajn, A. (1981). A survey of some children’s ideas about force. Physics Education, 16, 360–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker, R.J. (1983). Aristotle is not dead: Student understanding of trajectory motion. American Journal of Physics, 51, 352–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiteley, P. (1995). Student Difficulties with the force(s) acting on the Moon. New Approaches, 31–33.

  • Yeo, S. & Zadnik, M. (2000). Newton, we have a problem... Australian Science Teachers Journal, 46(1), 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Selcuk University, Meram, Konya, 42090, Turkey

    Sule Bayraktar

Authors
  1. Sule Bayraktar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sule Bayraktar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bayraktar, S. Misconceptions of Turkish Pre-Service Teachers about Force and Motion. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 7, 273–291 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9120-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9120-9

Key words

Search

Navigation