A Study on Student Teachers' Misconceptions and Scientifically

J Sci Educ Technol (2008) 17:70–81 DOI 10.1007/s10956-007-9083-1

A Study on Student Teachers’ Misconceptions and Scientifically Acceptable Conceptions About Mass and Gravity Selahattin Go¨nen

Published online: 15 November 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract The aims of this study were considered under three headings. The first was to elicit misconception that science and physics student teachers (pre-service teachers) had about the terms, ‘‘inertial mass’’, ‘‘gravitational mass’’, ‘‘gravity’’, ‘‘gravitational force’’ and ‘‘weight’’. The second was to understand how prior learning affected their misconceptions, and whether teachers’ misconceptions affected their students’ learning. The third was to determine the differences between science and physics student teachers’ understanding levels related to mass and gravity, and between their logical thinking ability levels and their attitudes toward physics lessons. A total of 267 science and physics student teachers participated in the study. Data collection instruments included the physics concept test, the logical thinking ability test and physics attitude scale. All instruments were administered to the participants at the end of the 3rd semester of their university years. The physics test consisting of paper and pencil test involving 16 questions was designed, but only four questions were related to mass and gravity; the second test consisted of 10 questions with two stages. The third test however, consisted of 15 likert type items. As a result of the analysis undertaken, it was found that student teachers had serious misconceptions about inertia, gravity, gravitational acceleration, gravitational force and weight concepts. The results also revealed that student teachers generally had positive attitudes toward physics lessons, and their logical thinking level was fairly good.

S. Go¨nen (&) Department of Science and Mathematics, Dicle University Ziya Go¨kalp Education Faculty, Diyarbakir, Turkey e-mail: [email protected]

123

Keywords

Mass Gravity Attitude Logical thinking

Introduction Physics education research has made significant progress over the past several years. This study deals with the issue in many different perspectives: theories of learning, investigation of student concepts and student attitudes toward physics lessons, factors influencing physics learning, instructional methods, and so on. Electrostatics, optics, mechanics, electric current and quantum concepts are a few examples of such topics. However, there are few studies on student concepts of gravity and mass, especially at the undergraduate level. The research on college students (Libarkin et al. 2005), pre-service teachers (Abell et al. 2001; Trumper 2001) and in-service teachers (Bulunuz and Jarrett 2006; Kikas 2004; Parker and Heywood 1998), suggests that many people do not have enough scientific understanding about earth and space science concepts. Most studies in this area focused on elementary and middle school students. It is in elementary school that many of the basic concepts about earth and space science are introduced. Some studies have shown that not only students but also pre-service teachers (Trumper 2001) and in-service elementary school teachers (Bulunuz and Jarrett 2006) have many misconceptions in these areas. Both elementary school and physics teachers need to have expertise to teach the entire science curriculum, including biology, chemistry, physics, and earth and space science concepts at different grade levels. Having a force at a distance and its effects only being felt render gravitational force concept and concepts (Weight, gravitational acceleration, and gravitational mass etc.) related to it difficult to understand. Research findings show that misconceptions are highly

J Sci Educ Technol (2008) 17:70–81

resistant to change by traditional interventions (Dahl et al. 2005). Therefore, researchers have carried out various conceptual change strategies to change naı¨ve ideas of preservice and in-service teachers about various science concepts. For example, they have used strategies, such as hands-on activities (Haury and Rillero 1994), concept mapping (Kim et al. 1998), analogies (Yerrick et al. 2003), and conceptual change texts (Cakir et al. 2002). For lack of published work on physics student teachers’ concepts of gravity and mass, this research was carried out. Masses are attracted to each other by force of gravity. The amount of attraction on an object like you and me at the surface of a planet is what we call weight. It depends on what planet we are on and on whether we are sitting still at the surface of the planet or are accelerating toward or away from it. ‘‘Inertial’’ mass is defined by Newton’s law: F = m a. For this reason, if you can measure a force and acceleration of an object, you can measure its’ mass. The standard method for earth uses force-balance, with one of the forces being the gravitational one, which is itself proportional to the ‘‘gravitational’’ mass, and has been experimentally shown to be exactly the same as ‘‘inertial’’ mass with a quite high precision. In weightlessness, you can not use the gravitational force to measure mass, and therefore you have to measure it by the inertial approach, using an unbalanced force. The idea that students develop ‘‘misconceptions’’ lies at the heart of much of the empirical research on learning science over the last twenty years. Educational researchers in the late 1970s began to listen carefully to what students were saying and doing on a variety of subject––matter tasks. What they heard and subsequently reported was both surprising and disturbing; students had ideas that were completed in the classroom. Students were not coming to instruction as blank slates. They had developed durable conceptions with explanatory power, but those conceptions were inconsistent with the accepted scientific concepts present in the instruction. Researchers in physics have reported that misconceptions even cause students to misperceive laboratory events and classroom demonstrations (Clement 1982; Resnick 1983). Despite developments in the area of the information and technology, students still have misconceptions about basic physics laws and have difficulty in applying them to physics concepts, such as mass, weight, and weightlessness. The concepts of mass, gravity, weight, gravitational force, the inertial mass and gravitational mass are fundamental, but also are the most misunderstood concepts in physics by students from secondary school to university. The difficulties related to these concepts are revealed by various studies (Nusbaum and Novick 1976; Nusbaum 1979; Osborne and Gilbert 1980; Galili 1993, 1997, 2001; Philips 1991) in this field support the argument.

71

After space (length, area, volume) and time, these concepts are among the most fundamental physical notations, thus affecting general physics knowledge. The force of gravity and weight, the inertial mass and the gravitational mass concepts should be perfectly explained by physics educators and teachers. Questions about these topics have played an important role in the development of physics. Students have misconceptions about physical meaning of the inertial mass and the gravitational mass, the free-fall acceleration and gravitational acceleration, and mass and weight concepts. Since there is a lack of published work investigating the misconceptions that physics education students’ have about gravity and mass, this research thought to be worthy of carried out.

Review of Related Literature As mentioned above, there is comparatively little published research on student teacher concepts of gravity and mass. The majority of literature has been published by researchers with backgrounds in science education rather than physics. Most of these studies focused on elementary and high school students. Researchers have studied the conceptual understanding of students about earth and basic astronomy concepts at a broad range of grade levels, such as elementary school (Benacchio 2001; Blake 2001; Hawley 2002), high school (Marques and Thompson 1997), and college (Kikas 2003). This research shows that students develop their own ideas about mass, weight, gravitational force, space and empty space. A number of studies have been conducted on students’ conceptions about the shape of the Earth and weight. The first such research was carried out by Nussbaum and Novak (1976) and Nussbaum (1979), but some other researchers also studied the same subject (Mali and Howe 1979; Sneider and Pulos 1983; Vosnidou and Brewer 1992; Sneider and Ohadi 1998). The general consensus from each study is that students’ conceptions of gravity are closely related to the conception of a spherical Earth. Galili and Bar (1997) investigated the ideas about gravity held by children aged five to sixteen. They found that those children’s views developed gradually from tactile experiences; thus, such schemes as ‘‘gravity is a pressing force’’, ‘‘gravity is possessed exclusively by heavy objects’’, ‘‘suspended substances are weightless’’ and others are intuitively constructed at a younger age. Osborne and Gilbert (1980) and Philips (1991) reported that students think that gravity needs air to exist. Ruggiero et al. (1985) and Bar (1989) reported that students consider air to be the natural medium that can create the needed connection. They believe that the existence of air is necessary for the action of gravity, as well as for electrical attraction.

123

72


Anderson (1990) commented that this idea prevails up to at least fifteen years of age. Treagust and Smith (1989) interviewed 24 students of the10th grade, and from their interviews, they developed a questionnaire which was administered to 113 students. According to the questionnaire, students think that gravity is affected by temperature, that gravity is selective about what it affects and when, and that gravity is stronger at great distances. Palmer (2001) investigated students’ alternative conceptions of gravity and examined the nature of any possible relationship between students’ conceptions and scientifically acceptable conceptions. The concept of weight in students’ minds was studied by numerous researchers (Gunstone and White 1981; Galili and Kaplan 1996; Galili 2001). Theoretical Framework Studies of contemporary college students have been interpreted by some investigators as suggesting those students reason intuitively as did impetus theorists (McCloskey 1983). West and Pines (1986) discussed the situation where the intuitive knowledge is well established, and the academic knowledge conflicts with this belief system. They noted that the student must exchange one concept for the other to resolve the conflict, proposing three possible outcomes of instruction: • • •

Conceptual exchange, where the subject shifts to the new belief system; Compartmentalization, where the new knowledge and old belief system coexist; No learning, where the subject simply retains old beliefs.

Similar conflicts continue not only at the secondary school or college level but also at the undergraduate level of physics education. Textbook may cause these conflicts. Despite the doubtful validity of the weight concept when defined as a gravitational force, it is widely presented in the educational practice and physics textbooks. An extreme example can be found in the popular textbook of Sears and Zemansky (later with/by Young). Through its many editions, generations of learners read the following definition (Sears et al. 1987; Young 1992).The weight of a body is the total gravitational force exerted on the body by all other bodies in universe. The idea of weight identification as the gravitational force is usually well internalized on the declarative level. Cognitive scientists explain this phenomenon as a misfit between the mental image of concept and its formal definition, guaranteed to produce misconceptions (Vinner 1991). The state of weightlessness is commonly addressed in almost all introductory physics courses. For years, this

123

phenomenon attracted and challenged the minds of learners, often influenced by the rich para-scientific literature frequently providing inaccurate and confusing explanations of this phenomenon. The distinction between mass and gravitational force becomes insufficient, forcing further refinement to distinguish between gravitational force and weight. While much effort is normally invested to encourage students to conceptually distinguish between mass and weight (likewise, heat and temperature, force and power), the case of weightlessness is different. Weightlessness provides a valuable means to assess physics knowledge; the way people account for it reveals much about their understanding of physics. White (1993) reported that those students’ understanding concepts were affected from some factors such as thinking ability, preliminaries, attitudes and instruction method. Therefore, it is important to examine the relationship between the understanding levels of students toward the physics concepts and their logical thinking levels as well as their attitudes toward physics lessons. Inhelder and Piaget (1958) reported that thinking abilities and preliminaries are important factors in order to get students to understand the abstract concepts. In this study, students’ understanding levels of the concepts of mass, weight, the gravitational force, the inertial mass and the gravitational mass and relationship between their achievements and their logical thinking ability as well as their attitudes toward physics were investigated.

Method Pilot Study Thirty University physics student teachers, who were not included in the study, participated in a pilot study. In this study, three tests, such as Physics test, Physics Attitude Scale and Logical thinking ability tests, were used. The pilot study was conducted on 30 students who did not take part in the research. The face and content validity of these tests were established in two different ways. First, early versions of the test were examined by a number of physics educators, teachers and graduate students, and their suggestions were incorporated into the final version. Second, the test was administered to 30 undergraduate physics students, and it was determined that they all agreed on the correct answer to each question. The reliability of the tests (Physics test, Physics Attitude Scale and Logical thinking ability tests) was calculated through Spermann- Brown’s two equivalent half dividing method. The reliability coefficients were found to be 0.78 for physics test, 0.85 for Physics Attitude Scale and 0.72 for Logical Thinking Ability test.


The Sample The sample under investigation comprised 267 student teachers from science and physics teacher training programs. There were 123 from the science program and 144 from the physics program. The students in the sample had studied the topics at different levels from elementary school to university. The students were given 30 minutes to answer the physics test. In addition, the logical thinking test was administered to these students. The students were given 20 minutes to answer this test and were encouraged to answer all questions for both tests. In addition to these two tests, the attitude scale toward physics lessons was administered to these students in order to define their attitudes.

73 Table 1 Four test items used in the study Item 1: In the empty space, a body has (a) Mass and weight (b) Only mass (c) Only weight Because, Item 2: The gravitational mass and inertial mass have (a) The same physical meaning (b) Different physical meaning Because, Item 3: Mass and weight have (a) The same physical meaning (b) Different physical meaning Because,

Instruments and Data Collection Procedure

Item 4: Let us consider two stationary bodies having equal masses. While one of them is located on a frictionless horizontal surface on the Earth, the other is located in empty space. In order to cause the two bodies to change their motion in the same way:

In the study, three tests were used.

(a) Forces of equal intensity and same direction should be applied to them (b) No forces are required

(1) (2) (3)

Physics Test related to mass and weight concepts, Logical Thinking Ability Test (LTAT), Attitude Scale toward Physics Lessons.

In this article, a case study design was used (Yin 1994). To use this method, a paper and pencil test consisting of 16 open- ended questions was developed but only 4 questions were related to mass and weight directly. Furthermore, a group of physics educators and physics teachers checked the test for validity and reliability and then confirmed the content validity of instrument. The sentences given in examples of each category were chosen from self statements of the participants without any change. In this way, I aimed to comprehend what kind of thinking structure the participants had about the physics concepts. The physics test items related to mass and weight concepts considered in this study are shown in Table 1. One of the tests used in this study is Logical Thinking Ability Test (LTAT). This test was developed by Tobin and Capie (1981). The psychometric characteristics of LTAT have been well-documented by the developers. This test was translated and adapted into Turkish by Geban et al. (1992). The test consists of 10 items designed to measure controlling variables (items 1 and 2), proportional (items 3 and 4), probabilistic (items 5 and 6), correlations (items 7 and 8) and combinational reasoning (items 9 and 10). For items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, the students select a response from among five possibilities, and then they are provided with five justifications among which they choose from. The correct answer is the correct choice plus the correct justification. The test score of students for each item equals 1 if they choose correct choice plus the

(c) Force needs only to be applied to the body on the frictionless surface d) Force needs only to be applied to the body in empty space Because,

correct justification, and equals 0 if they mark correct choice but wrong justification or wrong choice with wrong justification. The attitude scale toward physics lessons was adapted by researcher from attitude scale toward chemistry lessons developed earlier (Geban et al. 1994), and was used to determine students’ attitudes toward physics lesson. The scale consisted of 15 items in 5 point Likert type scale (fully agree, agree, undecided, disagree and fully disagree).

Data Analysis The open-ended questions listed in Table 1 were analyzed under the following categories and headings, as suggested by Abraham et al. (1994). • •

•

Sound Understanding: responses that included all the components of the validated response. Partial Understanding: responses that included at least one of the components of validated response, but not all the components. Partial Understanding with Specific Misconception: responses that showed understanding of the concept, but also made a statement, which demonstrated a misunderstanding.

123

74

• •


Specific Misconceptions: responses that included illogical or incorrect information. No Understanding: contained irrelevant information or an unclear response; left the response blank.

These criteria provided an opportunity to classify students’ responses and make comparisons about their level of understanding. The following method was used in order to determine students’ achievement scores. Sound understanding responses were scored with 4, partial understanding responses with 2, partial understanding with specific misconception responses with 1, specific misconception and no understanding responses with zero. Logical thinking ability test questions have two stages. If students gave correct response both in the first stage and second stage, question was scored with 1, in other case, question was scored with zero. Thus, each student’s score to this test was determined in this way. Items in the attitude scale toward physics lesson were scored with if student marked; fully agree 5, agree 4, undecided 3, disagree 2, fully disagree 1. Inductive analysis (Abraham at al. 1994) was used to evaluate the results of the open-ended written test and the information transcribed from the test. First, researcher examined the information piece by piece, read the information repeatedly, and then wrote down different kinds of conceptions that students reported. The analysis guidelines, especially the conceptualization of the data, the coding of the data, and development of categories were determined in terms of students’ responses. Throughout the labelling

Table 2 Independent sample t-test

Results The Independed t-test related to logical thinking abilities, attitudes, and achievements of students is presented in Table 2. Independent sample t-test results indicated physics student teachers’ attitudes toward physics, and their achievements were higher than those of science student teachers (P \ .001). However, both physics and science student teachers have positive attitude toward physics lessons. The results obtained from the physics test are presented below, by taking each item into consideration. Percentages of the obtained responses for each item are shown in Table 3. For Item 1, sound understanding included knowledge that mass is the amount of matter in an object and does not change. Weight is slightly different from the gravitational force that exists from interaction of masses. In the empty space, there are no other bodies; therefore, a body in this space is weightless. As can be seen from the table, 26 and 84% of students in science program and students in physics program showed sound understanding: the proportion of students’ responses categorized under the partial understanding category was 59 and 10%, respectively (Table 3). Moreover, while 6% of science, and 1% of physics student

Source of variance

F

Attitude score

Mean

Std. Dev. .60632

Science

123

3.89

Physics

144

4.13

Logical thinking ability test (LTAT) score

Science

123

6.37

Physics

144

5.79

Achievement score

Science

123

6.64

Physics

144

8.20

*P \ .001

Table 3 Percentages of responses given to questions by student teachers’

process, codes were revised and redefined. Classifications and their definitions are summarized in Tables 4 through 7. The results obtained from the three tests used in this study were analyzed by using SPSS statistical software.

Items

1

Programs

Science

Physics

Science

SU: Sound Understanding

SU

26

84

13

6

PU: Partial Understanding

PU

59

10

17

18

PUSM: Partial Understanding with specific misconception

PUSM

6

1

9

2

SM

5

2

44

NU

4

3

17

SM: Specific Misconception NU: No Understanding

123

2

df

t

Sig.(2-tailed)

265

-3.448

.001*

1.611

2.682

.753

-4.428

3 Physics

Science

.008 .001*

4 Physics

Science

Physics

6

13

29

35

76

76

17

25

5

–

8

3

36

8

4

40

29

38

5

7

6

8


teachers had partial understanding with specific misconceptions, the proportion of students’ responses classified under specific misconception category was five and 2%, respectively. However, 4% of science and 3% of physics student teachers did not respond to the question. Some examples from the given answers for Item 1 are presented in Table 4. In Item 2, sound understanding is as follows: mass is influenced by gravitational field that is called the gravitational mass. However, mass displays resistance to its acceleration, which is called the inertial mass; finally, mass plays a role during inertia of a body which is the inertial mass, although the gravitational mass plays a role while the attractive force is coming into being. As can be seen from Table 3, while 13% of science and 6per cent of physics student teachers showed sound understanding, science and physics student teachers’ responses categorized under partial understanding were 17 and 18%, respectively. Moreover, the percentages of partial understanding with specific misconception category are 9 and 2%,

75

respectively, whereas those in the specific misconception category are 44 and 36%, respectively for science and physics student teachers. Furthermore, 17% of science and 38% of physics student teachers did not provide answers to this item. Some examples of the responses given for Item 2 are shown in Table 5. Sound understanding in Item 3 incorporating into mass is the amount of matter in a body, and it is conserved everywhere. Weight changes depend on the intensity of the gravitational field. Gravity is a vector quantity; however, mass is a scalar quantity. Mass and weight have different

Table 5 Some examples from the responses given for Item 2 UL

Examples

SU

Mass plays role during inertia of body, which is the inertial mass. However, the gravitational mass plays role while the attractive force comes into being Mass of a body shows tendency to conserve its situation; that is, the inertial mass, but mass of a body causes the gravitational force when another particle exists; that is, the gravitational mass

Table 4 Some examples from the responses given for Item 1 UL

Examples

SU

The attraction field is zero in the empty space. Therefore, matter is weightless, but mass of matter does not change

Mass influences gravitational field, which is the gravitational mass. However, mass displays resistance to its acceleration; that is, the inertial mass PU

Mass is the amount of matter in an object and does not change. Weight is slightly different from the gravitational force that exists during interaction of masses. In the empty space there are no other bodies; therefore, body is weightless

Mass causes the gravitational force on another body; that is, the gravitational mass of a body The gravitational mass is called mass that causes weight

Mass does not depend on the gravitational field, but weight depends on the gravitational field. Therefore, mass does not change in the empty space, but weight is zero PU

There is no gravitational force in the space; therefore, weight is absent, but mass exists every time

PUSM

The gravitational acceleration is zero in the empty space. Weight is mass time gravitational acceleration; therefore, weight is zero

In the space, a body is weightless, but it has a mass. Weight is relative. Mass common property of the matter Weight is relative. Mass is a common property of the matter

SM

The inertial mass is the tendency of the body to keep its initial situation, but the gravitational mass is the attraction amount of matter in a body Mass is the attraction force between matters, which is the gravitational mass. Mass causes a body conserve its situation, which is the inertial mass Mass of a body in the empty space is the inertial mass. The gravitational mass is the attraction power between matters

Mass is the total number of molecules in the matter. Molecules’ number does not change in the empty space; therefore, mass does not change PUSM

Mass acts against gravity; that is, the gravitational mass. However, mass conserves its situation; that is, the inertial mass

Mass of a body while it rests is called as the inertial mass. The gravitational mass is the mass in gravity formula SM

There is acceleration in the gravitational mass, but not in the inertial mass

There is no gravitational force in space, but mass exists

Criterion of the inertial of a body is at the same time the gravitational mass

In the space, there is no gravitation; therefore, weight is absent, but mass exists

The gravitational mass is the gravitational acceleration that is applied on a body

The weight of a body is the same everywhere in the universe. However, mass have different values at different regions of the universe

The inertial mass is unchanged according to place where it is located, but the gravitational mass changes

There is no gravity in the space The mass of a body is as much as 1/6 of it in the world, because gravitational acceleration has taken different value at the space UL: Understanding Level

The gravitational mass is the force that a body applies to the earth The gravitational mass is gravity, but the inertial mass is the mass of a body while it is stationary The gravitational mass is vector quantity, but the inertial mass is scalar quantity

123

76


physical meanings. Moreover, mass has the same value everywhere in the space, but weight takes different values, while the gravitational acceleration changes. As can be seen from Table 3, while percentages of science and physics student teachers’ responses classified under sound understanding were six and 13, respectively, 76% of science and physics student teachers showed partial understanding. Also, the percentages of science and physics student teachers’ response categories under partial understanding with specific misconception are five and zero per cent, and those in the specific misconception category are eight and 4%, respectively. Furthermore, five per cent of science and 7% of physics student teachers did not provide answers to this item. Some examples of the responses given for item three are shown in Table 6. In Item 4, sound understanding is as follows: the inertia of equal masses is the same; therefore, they are moved and stopped by the same forces. If the bodies are found on the frictionless plane or in the empty space, a force should be applied to change their situations. As can be seen from Table 6 Some examples from the responses given for Item 3 UL

Examples

SU

Mass is the amount of matter in a body, and it is conserved everywhere. Gravity changes, depending on the intensity of the gravitational field. Gravity is vector quantity, but mass is scalar quantity Mass and gravity have different physical meanings. Mass is of scalar magnitude, and gravity depends on the direction of the gravitational acceleration. Mass has the same value everywhere in the space, but gravity takes different values, while the gravitational acceleration changes

PU

Mass is an unchanged amount of the matter. Gravity is the gravitational force from which bodies are influenced Mass is unchanged everywhere, but weight changes according to the gravitational field, so they have different physical meanings The product of mass and the gravitational acceleration is gravity Mass depends on the number of particles in the matter

PUSM

Gravity changes proportionally to the gravitational force. Mass is an unchanged amount of the matter Mass expresses the number of the molecules in a body. Gravity arises from the gravitational field Each matter has a mass, in addition to density and volume. Gravity is a quantity that changes depending on field stored in the space by bodies

SM

Gravity is the same everywhere and has constant value. Mass changes and depends on the gravitational acceleration Gravity is the gravitational acceleration that acts on a body Mass depends on density and volume, but weight does not The gravitational force is important for gravity Mass is the specific gravity of a body

123

Table 3, percentages of science and physics student teachers’ responses in terms of classified understanding were 29 and 35%, respectively, but 17% of science and 25% of physics student teachers indicated partial understanding in accordance with the same sequence. Moreover, the percentages of student teachers’ responses categorized under the heading of partial understanding with specific misconception were eight and 3%, respectively, while 40% of science and 29% of physics student teachers’ demonstrated specific misconceptions. Furthermore, 6% of science and 8% of physics student teachers have not provided answers to this item. Some examples from the responses given for Item 4 are shown in Table 7.

Discussion In Turkey, science teachers are expected to teach fundamental science (Biology, Chemistry and Physics) concepts in primary schools, and Physics teachers are obliged to teach only physics topics at secondary level. My findings indicate that student teachers have difficulties describing and using the terms, such as the inertial mass, the gravitational mass, weight, gravity, the gravitational force, the gravitational acceleration and space. West and Pines (1986) discussed the situation where intuitive knowledge is well established and academic knowledge conflicts with this belief system. They noted that the student must exchange one concept for the other to resolve the conflict. Stavy (1990) asserted that the various types of knowledge exist in the cognitive system. For this reason, this process is a struggle in which the strongest knowledge dominates. Thus, this study’s findings indicate that, in the sample, there is an accurate understanding of mass, weight, inertia and space. In fact, the present study reveals that students’ misconceptions about gravity concept may even affect their knowledge under investigation. Therefore, this study agrees with the results obtained by researchers (Galili and Bar 1997; Osborne and Gilbert 1980; Philips 1991). This may stem from the explanation of their teachers and textbooks. Though the idea of weight identification as the gravitational force is usually well internalized at declarative level, cognitive scientists explain this phenomenon as a misfit between the mental image of concept and its formal definition, guaranteed to produce misconceptions (Vinner 1991). The interesting findings identified in the responses of students imply that ‘‘there is acceleration in the gravitational mass, but not in the inertial mass’’, ‘‘the inertial mass remains unchanged according to place where it is located, though the gravitational mass changes’’, ‘‘the gravitational mass is gravity, but the inertial mass is the mass of a body while it is stationary’’. These findings have revealed that

J Sci Educ Technol (2008) 17:70–81 Table 7 Some examples from the responses given for Item 4 UL

Examples

SU

The inertia of the equal masses is the same; therefore, they are moved and stopped by the same forces If bodies are found on the frictionless plane or in the empty space, a force should be applied in order to change their situations Both bodies should be affected by the same force, because they have equal masses. Thus, they display conservation tendency to their situations A force should be applied to a body to bring it into action in every kind of medium

PU

The friction force does not influence on a body owing to the gravitation if it is on the frictionless plane A body on the earth stops at a certain time, but in the empty space, it moves a long time owing to frictionless Force will be applied to these two bodies in order to move them, which is the smallest force Both media are frictionless; therefore, bodies are brought into action by equal forces

PUSM

Whether there is friction or not, a force applies on a body in order to bring it into action on earth. A body in the empty space continues its motion endlessly In both media, bodies are influenced by other forces they bring into action by the same forces A force only should be applied to a body on the earth. There is not anything in the empty space; therefore, a body moves with vacuum. Bodies in the empty space move continuously, because they are not influenced by a force. However, a small force should be applied to a body on the earth to bring it into action A force should be applied to a body on the earth. However, a force does not require to be applied on a body in the empty space since it is pulled by other bodies in the sky

SM

A body moves continuously in the space due to the absence of gravitation. However, a force requires moving a body on the earth, because gravitational force influences it Resultant force should be zero for a body on the earth to get into motion We can bring a body into action in the empty space, which does not require any force The empty space and frictionless surface have the same properties; therefore, the same forces should be applied on the bodies If a force is bigger than the gravitational force applied on a body, it moves in the frictionless space A body on the frictionless surface has gravity, so a force requires moving it A body on the horizontal frictionless surface moves because of its potential energy. Energy of a body is zero in the empty space

student teachers in the science and physics programs are not able to distinguish the inertial mass from the gravitational mass. Moreover, some student teachers, as can be seen from Table 3 and Table 5, claim that the gravitational

77

mass is the force of a body exerted on the earth. This may stem from the misunderstanding of the gravitational mass and gravitational force concepts. As noted in Table 5, some of the students maintain that the criterion of the inertia of a body is at the same time the gravitational mass. This showed that students have difficulty about the inertia and the gravitational role of mass. Besides, 17% of science and 38% of physics student teachers did not answer this question. This may stem from lack of knowledge of student teachers. As also noted in Table 3 and Table 6, some student teachers have misconceptions about the mass and gravity concepts. They claim that gravity is the same everywhere and has constant value, while mass changes and depends on the gravitational acceleration that acts on a body. Findings obtained in the present study differ in many respects from other studies related to this topic. The general consensus from each study is that those students’ conceptions of weight or gravity are closely related to the conception of a spherical earth. Galili and Bar (1997) investigated ideas about gravity held by children aged five to sixteen. They found that children believe that ‘‘gravity is a pressing force’’, ‘‘gravity is possessed exclusively by heavy object’’, and ‘‘suspended substances are weightless’’. Osborne and Gilbert (1980), and Philips (1991) reported that those students think that gravity needs air to exist. Similarly, Ruggiero et al. (1985) and Bar (1989) reported that students consider air to be the natural medium that needs connection. In other words, students believe the existence of gravity. These differences between misconceptions of students may stem from their training levels. If these misconceptions are remedied at the end of secondary school, students learn scientific concepts more easily. Otherwise, these misconceptions would be kept by students from the elementary school to university. In the present study, both science and physics student teachers have misconceptions about the motion of a body in the empty space and on the frictionless surface in the world. The findings identified by the responses of students in both programs indicate that ‘‘a body moves continuously in the space owing to the absence of gravitation’’. However, they state that ‘‘a force is required to move a body on the earth’’, because gravitational force influences it’’. Furthermore, they claim that ‘‘a body on the frictionless surface has gravity, so a force is required to move it.’’ According to them, a body on the horizontal frictionless surface moves, because it has a potential energy; however, a body in the empty space does not move because it does not have energy. A similar study was carried out by diSessa and Sherin (1998). The excerpt in the paper by these authors is from an interview with a female, college grade 1, student called J about the fact that ‘‘gravity pulls harder on different

123

78

objects’’, but that all objects, ‘‘no matter how heavy or light’’, fall at the same rate. The question and the ensuing conservation relate to three physical quantities: gravitational force, mass and gravitational acceleration. These are related to the following: gravitational force equals mass (m) times gravitational acceleration (agrav), namely Fgrav= magrav J also talks about weight (W) that is equated with gravitational force, and then we get the equation W = mg. However, according to physicists, g is free-fall acceleration, and therefore, not equal to gravitational acceleration. These two accelerations are rather different from each other. Therefore, J’s reasoning does not seem in accord with that of the physicist’s. Then, whether the distinction between gravitational force and gravitational acceleration is part of her conceptual system remains an open question. diSessa and Sherin (1998) conclude that J identifies g as a force rather than as acceleration. Their explanation is that she wrongly ‘‘coordinates’’ gravity via the property ‘‘gravity acts in the same way on all bodies’’ and via ‘‘the correct equation F = mg, incorrectly identifying g rather than F as the force of gravity. However, it is not quite clear on what grounds authors base their conclusion. It could be said that J is quite consistent in using the word ‘‘gravity’’ for ‘‘gravitational acceleration’’. So far, her reasoning has been quite compatible with physical theory; gravitational acceleration is uniform and you do not feel it. It is only in her last sentence that she uses the word ‘‘force’’: You do not feel the force of gravity. Even this statement is correct if it is interpreted as ‘‘you do not feel the force of gravitational acceleration’’ (but incorrect if interpreted as ‘‘you do not feel the force of gravitational force’’). The authors also state in their analysis that J makes a distinction between the weight of an object and the force of gravity. This is quite correct if we restrict ourselves to the wording in the utterances. These results showed that students have serious misunderstandings about the frictionless surface and the empty space. They believe that gravity hinders the motion of body at the frictionless surfaces, and body in the empty space does not have energy. All of these mistakes revealed that these student teachers were not able to understand inertia of matter. From this point of view, these misconceptions were evaluated as deficiency with respect to science and physics teacher education. In addition, findings concerning the present study supported Schmidt’s (1997) hypothesis that there was a logical connection between students’ misconceptions and their current state of knowledge. Physics student teachers’ scores given from concept test are higher than those of science student teachers. This situation may have stemmed from the fact that physics student teachers take physics courses concerning mass and gravity concepts more detailed than science student teachers. In addition to

123


this, both physics student teachers and science student teachers’ percentages of misconceptions and no understanding are found to be high. This result has shown that students in both programs have not assimilated concepts enough in the physics test used in the present investigation. The misconceptions indicated that this study had similarities partly with the results of other studies (Nussbaum and Novak 1976; Nussbaum 1979; diSessa and Sherin 1998; Kikas 2004) carried out on primary and secondary school students’ misconceptions related to mass and gravity concepts. As seen from these results, it can be maintained that teachers have an important role on primary and secondary school students’ misconceptions related to this subject. Hence, determining and remedying teacher’s misconceptions by using proper methods are necessary for contemporary physics education. In addition, students’ attitudes toward physics lessons are also of utmost importance for success. The results of this study also show that physics student teachers’ attitudes toward physics lessons are better than science student teachers. These results can be interpreted as physics student teachers enjoy physics lessons and they will execute their occupation enthusiastically. However, it should not be forgotten that having positive attitude toward a job is not sufficient to do it properly, so physics and science teachers have to learn and teach physics concepts compatible with scientific views. For acquisition of scientific views, logical thinking level of students is an important factor. This factor is necessary for their scientific skill process. The findings obtained from this study indicated that science student teachers’ logical thinking levels are higher than those of physics student teachers. The examination of responses given by students shows that science student teachers have more correct responses to questions related to statistics and probability. This difference may result from the contents of courses that are given in both programs. Science student teachers take statistics and probability courses, but physics student teachers do not take these courses. Hence, it is thought that statistics and probability courses are necessary for physics teachers since combinational and probabilistic thinking has an important role in the development of scientific skill process. As a result, statistically, achievement scores of physics student teachers are higher than those of science student teachers, although logical thinking abilities of science student teachers are higher than those of physics student teachers. However, physics student teachers’ attitudes toward physics lessons are slightly more positive than science student teachers’ attitudes (see, Table 2). In the present study, student teachers have some misconceptions about this subject. They were not able to distinguish the difference between weight and gravitational force, as well as between inertial mass and gravitational mass.


Conclusion Understanding is sometimes incomplete at every level, and it is easy to draw incorrect outcomes from incomplete models. The generation of the misconception is a natural and probably unavoidable part of the learning process. Therefore, there is need to determine willful misconceptions in physics subjects. In this study, differences between science and physics student teachers’ understandings levels related to mass and gravity force, and between their logical thinking levels and attitudes toward physics lessons were determined. In addition, whether or not teachers play a role on primary and secondary school students’ misconceptions related to physics concepts was discussed. The results revealed that many participants held several misconceptions concerning fundamental physics concepts. The inertial mass, the gravitational mass, the gravitational force, gravity and space were among such concepts. These concepts are basic to scientific concepts and act as an important role in the understanding of other concepts in different disciplines of natural sciences. The findings obtained in this study add to the evidence that, regardless of students’ level of schooling, misconceptions are prevalent and resistant. Many students participated in this study had difficulties for comprehension of the difference between some concepts, such as the inertial mass and the gravitational mass. When I looked at the students’ level of understanding by considering percentages in ‘‘sound understanding’’ category, there were important discrepancies for four items (Table 3). Physics student teachers’ percentages were higher than science student teachers’; however, in ‘‘partial understanding’’ category, percentages of science student teachers were higher than physics student teachers for items 1, 2 and 4, but their percentages were equal to Item 3. Nevertheless, their responses revealed that both physics and science student teachers could not realize the important role of gravitation and inertia concepts, even if they studied these concepts from secondary school to university. These results showed that the science and physics teacher candidates under discussion had many misconceptions about the mass and gravitation concepts. The result of physics concept test was also important since it demonstrated the situation of teacher candidates. Therefore, teacher educators first of all should be determined to remedy misconceptions of student teachers related to their programs. The study also showed that teacher candidates held many misconceptions. In this study, significant difference was found between physics and science student teachers’ attitudes toward physics lessons (P \ 0.01). According to these results, physics student teachers’ attitudes toward physics lessons were better than science student teachers’. However, the

79

science student teachers’ logical thinking ability test scores were found higher than those of the physics student teachers (P \ 0.01), (see Table 2). Physics and science teachers have vital role in science and physics education because of their role in educating our younger generation. For this reason, teacher training programs need to critically weigh the long-term consequences of having science and physics teacher graduate before they get the chance to explore and try to alter their misconceptions about scientific ideas, because they are not likely to be able to develop scientifically accurate conceptions in their students. We can conclude that statistics and probability courses have positive effects on the development of logical thinking levels. At the same time, teacher education programs should evaluate the efficiency levels of teacher trainees and begin to find ways to enhance their efficiency beliefs, logical thinking abilities and attitudes regarding science and physics teaching. Therefore, in recent years, special attention has been given to the research field of science education, to nature of scientific knowledge and to its construction processes. It is postulated that the history of science can be a reference for teacher to plan their learning and teaching activities (Posner et al. 1982). In fact, on many occasions, even students are not fully aware of their misconceptions. Furthermore, as a consequence of traditional teaching, misconceptions can stick together with the learned scientific theories and are obvious in specific contexts, be it daily or academic. On the other hand, we should not forget that many physical interactions are difficult to perceive (for example; friction forces, inertia, gravitation etc.), which may induce students to assign these phenomena an inferior status, or they simply ignore them as a possible cause of natural events. It is important to establish the effective impact of knowing that they are misunderstood and that they persist in being misunderstood because they are resisting the use of correct scientific ideas. Knowing these facts could minimize the impact of negative consequences once students discover that they are also unintentionally holding misconceptions and wrong beliefs (Campanario 1998). It is well known that students develop their own conceptions about physics and scientific knowledge. Further research should focus on how physics student teachers’ misconceptions could be remedied and how their understanding levels could be developed.

References Abell S, Martini M, George M (2001) ‘‘That’s what scientists have to do’’: Pre-service elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during a moon investigation. Int J Sci Edu 23(1):1095–1109

123

80 Abraham MR, Williamson VM, Westbrook SL (1994) A cross-age study of the understanding of five concepts. J Res Sci Teach 31(2):147–165 Andersson B (1990) Pupils’ conceptions of matter and its transformation (Age 12–16). Stud Sci Edu 18:53–85 Bar V (1989) Introducing mechanics at the elementary school. Phy Edu 24(6):348–352 Benacchio L (2001). The importance of the moon in teaching astronomy at the primary school. Earth Moon Planet 85(86): 51–60 Blake A (2001) Developing young children’s understanding: An example from earth science. Eval Res Edu 15(3):154–163 Bulunuz N, Jarrett O (2006) Basic earth and space science concepts: building elementary teacher understanding. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Georgia science teachers association, Columbus, Georgia, 2002, April Cakir OS, Uzuntiryaki E, Geban O (2002) Contribution of conceptual change texts and concept mapping to students’ understanding of acids and bases. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national association for research in science teaching, New Orleans, LA Campanario JM (1998) Ventajas e inconvenientes de la historia de la ciencia como recurso en la ensefianza de las ciencias. Revista de Ensenanza de la Flsica 11(1):5–14 Clement J (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. Am J Phy 50(1):66–71 Dahl J, Anderson SW, Libarkin J (2005) Digging into earth science: Alternative conceptions held by K-12 teachers. J Sci Edu 6: 65–68 diSessa AA, Sherin BL (1998) What changes in conceptual change. Int J of Sci Edu 20(10):1155–1191 Galili I (1993) Weight and gravity: teachers’ ambiguity and students’ confusion about the concepts. Int J Sci Edu 15(1):149–162 Galili I (2001) Weight versus gravitational force: historical and educational perspectives. Int J Sci Edu 23(10):1073–1093 Galili I, Bar V (1997) Children’s operational knowledge about weight. Int J Sci Edu 19:317–340 Galili I, Kaplan D (1996) Students’ operation with the concept of weight. Sci Edu 80(4):457–487 ¨ , As¸ kar P, O ¨ zkan I_ (1992) Effects of computer simulated Geban O experiment and problem solving approaches on students learning outcomes at the high-school level. J Edu Res 86(1):5–10 ¨ , Ertepinar H, Yilmaz G, Altin A, S¸ ahbaz F (1994) Bilgisayar Geban O ¨ g˘rencilerin Fen Bilgisi Bas¸ arilarina ve Fen Destekli Eg˘itimin O _ Bilgisi Ilgilerine Etkisi (The effects of computer-assisted teaching on students’ achievements and attitudes of science). First national science education congress proceedings, 9 Eylu¨l _ University, Izmir-TURKEY, pp 1–2 Gunstone RF, White RT (1981) Understanding of gravity. Sci Edu 65(3):291–299 Haury DL, Rillero P (1994) Perspectives of hands-on science teaching. ERIC Clearinghouse for science, mathematics, and environmental education, Columbus, OH Hawley D (2002) Building conceptual understanding in young scientists. J Geosci Edu 50(4):363–371 Inhelder B, Piaget J (1958) The Growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence; an essay on the construction of formal operational structures. Basic Books, New York Kikas E (2003) University students’ conceptions of different physical phenomena. J Adult Develop 103:139– 150 Kikas E (2004) Teachers’ conceptions and misconceptions concerning three natural phenomena. J Res Sci Teach 41(5):432– 448 Kim Y, Germann PJ, Patton M (1998) Study of concept maps regarding the nature of science by pre-service secondary science

123

J Sci Educ Technol (2008) 17:70–81 teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national science teachers association, Las Vegas, NV Libarkin JC, Anderson SW, Dahl J, Beilfuss M, Boone W (2005) Qualitative analysis of college students’ ideas about the earth: interviews and open-ended questionnaires. J Geosci Edu 53(1):17–26 Mali GB, Howe A (1979) Development of earth and gravity concepts among Nepali children. Sci Edu 63(5):685–691 Marques L, Thompson D (1997) Misconceptions and conceptual changes concerning continental drift and plate tectonics among Portuguese students aged 16–17. Res Sci Tech Edu 15(2):195– 222 McCloskey M (1983) Naive theories of motion, In: Gentner D, Stevens AL (eds) Mental models. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ Nussbaum J (1979) Children’s conceptions of the earth as a cosmic body: a cross age study. Sci Edu 63(1):83–93 Nussbaum J, Novak J (1976) An assessment of children’s concepts of the earth utilizing structured interviews. Sci Edu 60(4):535–550 Osborne RJ, Gilbert JK (1980) A method for investigated concept understanding in science. Europ J Sci Edu 2(3):311–321 Palmer D (2001) Students’ alternative conceptions and scientifically acceptable conceptions about gravity. Int J Sci Edu 23(7): 691–706 Parker J, Heywood D (1998) The earth and beyond: developing primary teachers’ understanding of basic astronomical events. Int J Sci Edu 20(5):503–520 Philips WC (1991) Earth science misconceptions. Sci Teac 58(2): 21–23 Posner GJ, Strike KA, Hewson PW, Gertzog WA (1982) Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Sci Edu 66(2):211–227 Resnick LB (1983) Mathematics and science learning: a new conception. Science 220:477–478 Ruggiero S, Cartelli A, Dupre F, Vincentini Missoni M (1985) Weight, gravity and air pressure: mental representations by Italian middle school pupils. Europ J Sci Edu 7(12):181–194 Schmidt HJ (1997) Students’ misconceptions-looking for a pattern. Sci Edu 81(2):123–135 Sears FW, Zemansky MW, Young HD (1987) College physics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, pp 74 Sneider C, Ohadi M (1998) Unraveling students’ misconceptions about the earth’s shape and gravity. Sci Edu 82(2):265–284 Sneider C, Pulos S (1983) Children’s cosmographies: understanding the earth shape and gravity. Sci Edu 67(2):205–221 Stavy R (1990) Pupils’ problems in understanding conservation of mass. Int J Science Edu 12(5):501–512 Tobin K, Capie W (1981) The development and validation of a group test of logical thinking. Edu Psychol Meas 41(2):413–423 Treagust DF, Smith CL (1989) Secondary students understanding of gravity and the motions of planets. School Sci Math 89(5): 380–391 Trumper R (2001) A cross-college age study of science and nonscience students’ conceptions of basic astronomy concepts in pre-service training for high-school teachers. J Sci Edu Technol 10:189–195 Vosniadou S, Brewer WF (1992) Mental models of the earth: a study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychol 24(4):535–585 Vinner S (1991) The role of definitions in teaching and learning mathematics. In: Tall D (eds) Advanced mathematical thinking, Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 65–81 West LHT, Pines AL (1986) Conceptual understanding and science learning: an interpretation of research within sources–– of––knowledge framework. Sci Edu 70(5):583–604 White RT (1993) Learning science. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford

J Sci Educ Technol (2008) 17:70–81 Yerrick RK, Doster E, Nugent JS, Parke HM, Crawley FE (2003) Social interaction and the use of analogy: an analysis of Preservice teachers’ talk during physics inquiry lessons. J Res Sci Teach 40(5):443–463

81 Yin RK (1994) Case study research design and methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA Young HD (1992) Physics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, pp 319

123