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 Gönen
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. Gönen (&)
Department of Science and Mathematics, Dicle University Ziya
Gökalp 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 naı̈ve 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
J Sci Educ Technol (2008) 17:70–81
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.
J Sci Educ Technol (2008) 17:70–81
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
•
•
J Sci Educ Technol (2008) 17:70–81
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
J Sci Educ Technol (2008) 17:70–81
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
J Sci Educ Technol (2008) 17:70–81
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
J Sci Educ Technol (2008) 17:70–81
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.
J Sci Educ Technol (2008) 17:70–81
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
Geban Ö, Aşkar P, Özkan I_ (1992) Effects of computer simulated
experiment and problem solving approaches on students learning
outcomes at the high-school level. J Edu Res 86(1):5–10
Geban Ö, Ertepinar H, Yilmaz G, Altin A, Şahbaz F (1994) Bilgisayar
Destekli Eğitimin Öğrencilerin Fen Bilgisi Başarilarina ve Fen
_
Bilgisi Ilgilerine
Etkisi (The effects of computer-assisted teaching on students’ achievements and attitudes of science). First
national science education congress proceedings, 9 Eylül
_
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