Parallelism in the development of children's ideas and the historical development of projectile motion theories

Impetus beliefs as default heuristics: Dissociation between explicit and implicit knowledge about motion

“…For instance, some younger children (ages 7-10) believe that falling has an initial cause-namely, a loss of support-but is a natural motion, since there is no need for any force or agency for it to continue (Eckstein & Kozhevnikov, 1997;Eckstein & Shemesh, 1993;Ogborn, 1985). However, most students, beginning about Grades 5-6 (age, 11-12), acquire beliefs resembling impetus rather than Aristotelian theories (Eckstein & Kozhevnikov, 1997) and continue to hold these beliefs even after physics instruction. Although some researchers have characterized older children's conceptions as Aristotelian, this term was used inappropriately, and the belief systems of most students are closer to medieval impetus theory (see Halloun & Hestenes, 1985, for a detailed discussion).…”

“…That is, an object that is merely carried in a horizontal direction by another moving object does not acquire impetus and, therefore, will fall straight down after being released (e.g., Eckstein & Kozhevnikov, 1997;Fishbein, Stavy, & Ma-Naim, 1989;. For instance, Fishbein et al found that 50% of participants believed that a ball carried by an airplane would fall straight down if released, but only 13.6% believed that a ball launched over a precipice would fall straight down.…”

Pragmatic Review of Literature Associated with Projectile Motion Perceived as Difficult to Teach by Some South African Teachers

“…Because the topic of projectile motion is challenging to some teachers and students, many studies have focused on the strategies for teaching and learning projectile motion. For example, the study by Eckstein (1997) focused on how children learn projectile motion, while the study by Tao and Gunstone (1999) focused on using computer-supported Physics instruction to bring conceptual change in projectile motion. Park and Han (2002) showed how to use deductive reasoning to teach projectile motion.…”

Supporting Conceptual Change in School Science: A possible role for tacit understanding

“…when balls roll over cliffs or litter is dropped from moving vehicles (e.g. Anderson, Tolmie, Howe, Mayes, & Mackenzie, 1992;Eckstein & Kozhevnikov, 1997;Eckstein & Shemesh, 1989;Hood, 1995;Kaiser, Profitt, & McCloskey 1985;Krist, 2000;Marioni, 1989;McCloskey 1983;Whitaker, 1983). Regardless of student age (from preschool-to undergraduate-level), the main finding is that objects are variously predicted to fall vertically, travel backwards, fall diagonally forwards, or continue horizontally in space before falling vertically.…”