Readiness to change the conception that ?motion-implies-force?: A comparison of 12-year-old and 16-year-old students

Abstract

Several investigators have reported difficulties in changing the alternative conceptions which high school students hold about aspects of mechanics. It has been suggested that students should be introduced to mechanics at a younger age because as they get older they become less willing or less able to change their ideas. To test this proposal, the present study was designed to find out whether older students were less ready to change their conceptions than younger students. Individual interviews were carried out with 63 students in year 6 (ages 11–12) and 66 students in year 10 (ages 15–16). Those students who held the alternative conception that “motion‐implies‐force” were asked to read a refutational text. This text was “student‐centered” in that it was not presented as the correct answer, but rather as just another possible alternative which the student could consider. Immediate and delayed posttests, and the metacognitive responses of the students, showed that conceptual change had occurred in 35% of the year 6 group and 44% of the year 10 group who had read the text (although the difference in percentages was not significant). Therefore, there was no evidence to suggest that conceptual change is more difficult for older students. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Error‐based simulation as a thought experimental method for changing “motion implies a force” misconception: An evaluation

“…Posner's model (Posner et al, 1982; Strike & Posner, 1985) provides the following pedagogical principles for making conceptual change: (1) making students understand the scientific concept, (2) clarifying that the scientific concept conflicts with misconceptions, and (3) showing that the scientific concept is more plausible and fruitful than misconceptions. This principle was made more “procedural” by Hashweh (1986) in his model, focusing on evoking and resolving “cognitive conflict.” For example, some methods were proposed and practiced based on Hashweh's model (Palmer & Flanagan, 1997; Takagaki, 2004). Thereafter, through criticism by other researchers (e.g., Duit, 2003) and modifications made by the authors (Strike & Posner, 1992), Posner's model has evolved more by considering social contexts, aiming to integrate students' intuitions with scientific concepts focusing on their development, and avoiding excessive emphasis on cognitive conflict (Vosniadou & Ioannides, 1998).…”

“…In Palmer and Flanagan's (1997) study, students of primary and secondary schools who were judged to have MIF misconceptions by using a pre‐test (a problem that was the same as Problem (3) used in our tests), read a “refutational text” in which the correct concepts of force were presented as other students' opinions such as “there is no upward force because the hand is not pushing the ball anymore.” After a class discussion based on the text, they worked on a post‐test and delayed post‐test (each of which included the same problem as the pre‐test, and other two problems such as a ball thrown vertically downward and a ball in trajectory motion). They found that, 43% to 57% of them corrected their MIF misconceptions in the post‐test, and 35% to 44% of them maintained the correction after 1–2 weeks in the delayed post‐test.…”

“…Most of them follow the classical model of conceptual change proposed by Posner et al (1982), and Strike and Posner (1985) as their theoretical basis. Some methods (Palmer & Flanagan, 1997; Takagaki, 2004) focus on evoking and resolving “cognitive conflict” according to the model by Hashweh (1986), in which Posner et al (1982) model was made more “procedural.” Some methods (Dekkers & Thijs, 1998; Elby, 2001) are “epistemological” methods that aim to integrate students' intuition with scientific concepts, focusing on their epistemological development. These methods usually first present a phenomenon that cannot be explained with students' misconceptions, and then introduce a scientific concept that can explain the phenomenon.…”

“…However, a common problem with these methods is that their counterexample is usually “the (verbal) explanation of the correct concept” (Palmer & Flanagan, 1997; Takagaki, 2004; Dekkers & Thijs, 1998; Elby, 2001, for example). For example, consider the problem in which an object on a smooth floor is pushed by a hand for an instant and keeps moving at a constant velocity, and suppose that students think force is exerted on the object in the direction of motion.…”

Fizik Öğretmen Adaylarının Düzgün Çembersel Hareket Konusundaki Kavram Yanılgılarının Zaman İçinde Değişimi

“…Öğrencilerin fizik konularındaki kavram yanılgılarını araştırılırken çok farklı konular üzerinde çalışılmıştır (Chambers & Andre, 1997;Palmer & Flanagan, 1997 1.1d, 1.2a, 1.3a 3.1b, 3.2a, 3.3a 3.1e, 3.2f, 3.3a 3.1e, 3.2g, 3.3a 6.1b, 6.2a, 6.3a 6.1d, 6.2g, 6.3a 7.1d, 7.2d, 7.3a KY03 Merkezcil kuvvetin yönü dışa doğrudur.…”