Research Article

Using Alternative Ideas for Determining the Learning Curve on the Concept of Force

Konstantinos T. Kotsis 1 , Dimitris Panagou 1 *
More Detail
1 Department of Primary Education, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, GREECE* Corresponding Author
European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(4), October 2022, 495-506, https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/12251
Published: 25 July 2022
OPEN ACCESS   2161 Views   926 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This study is empirical research about alternative ideas on the concept of force for five different age groups, primary school students (11), middle school students (15), high school students (17), students of the Department of Primary Education (21), and active teachers in primary education (27-50). We used the same questionnaire for all groups, which shows a relationship with the answers depending on their age. The analysis of the percentage of the correct answers concerning the age of subjects gives a sigmoid curve, which is the learning curve on the concept of force. For all the questions, there was a statistically significant correlation with age. That provides us with interesting information about the teaching of the force. In particular, our results suggest that the alternative conceptions of students and teachers, reflecting misconceptions and preconceptions, reduce with age or equivalently with the education level. Our study can be used in science teaching classrooms, on the design of curricula, and teachers’ professional development.
Keywords: alternative ideas, force, learning curve, sigmoid learning curve, teaching physics

CITATION (APA)

Kotsis, K. T., & Panagou, D. (2022). Using Alternative Ideas for Determining the Learning Curve on the Concept of Force. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(4), 495-506. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/12251

REFERENCES

  1. Abell, S. (2000). International perspectives on science teacher. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  2. Ahmad, K., Hanouf, Z., & Ishak, A. (2017). MHD Casson nanofluid flow past a wedge with Newtonian heating. The European Physical Journal Plus, 132(87). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2017-11356-5
  3. Alonzo, A. C., & Steedle, J. T. (2009). Developing and accessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93(3), 389-421. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20303
  4. Bayraktar, S. (2009). Misconceptions of Turkish pre-service teachers about force and motion. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 273-291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9120-9
  5. Blandin, B., & Poutot, G. (2015). Exploration of students’ misconceptions in mechanics using the FCI. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), 116-120. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-3-2-2
  6. Blown, E. J., & Bryce T. G. K. (2006). Knowledge restructuring in the development of children’s cosmologies. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1411-1462. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600718062
  7. Brancato, G., Macchia, S., Murgia, M., Signore, M., & Simeoni, G. (2004). Handbook of recommended practices for questionnaire development and testing in the European statistical system (2004)-Eurostat. European Commission.
  8. Chu, H., Treagust D. F., Shelley Y., & Marjan Z. (2012). Evaluation of students’ understanding of thermal concepts in everyday contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1509-1534. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.657714
  9. Clough, E., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1985). Children’s understanding of inheritance. Journal of Biological Education, 19(4), 304-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1985.9654757
  10. Crogman, H., Peters, R., & Crogman. T., (2018). Probing students misconceptions results from concept inventory and their understanding in science learning. European Journal of Physics Education, 9(1), 23-44.
  11. Da Silva, W. P., & Da Silva, C. P. (2010). LAB fit curve fitting software (Nonlinear regression and treatment of data program), V 7.2. 47. Univ. Fed. de Campina Grande, Campina Grande, Brazil.
  12. De Jong, O., R. Veal, W., & Van Driel, J. (2002). Exploring chemistry teachers’ knowledge base. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice. Springer.
  13. Driver, R. (1989). Students’ conceptions and the learning of science, International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 481-490. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069890110501
  14. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5(1), 61-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267808559857
  15. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F., (2004). Conceptual change–A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671-688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305016
  16. Fazio, C., & Battaglia, O. R. (2019). Conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics through cluster analysis of FCI student. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 1497-1517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-09944-1
  17. Ferreira, A., Lemmer, M., & Gunstone, R (2017). Alternative conceptions: Turning adversity into advantage. Research in Science Education, 49(3), 657-678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9638-y
  18. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. SAGE.
  19. Ginns, I., & Watters, J. (1995). An analysis of scientific understandings of preservice elementary teacher education students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(2), 205-222. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320209
  20. Guisasola, J., Zubimendi, J., Almudí, J., & Ceberio, M. (2002). The evolution of the concept of capacitance throughout the development of the electric theory and the understanding of its meaning by university students. Science & Education, 11, 247-261. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015248831346
  21. Itza-Ortiz, S., Rebello, S., & Zollman, D. (2003). Students’ models of Newton’s second law in mechanics and electromagnetism. European Journal of Physics, 25(1), 81-89. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/25/1/011
  22. Kelly, J. (2001). Rethinking the elementary science methods course: A case for content, pedagogy, and informal science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 755-777. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044080
  23. Kerr, C., Fisher, D., Yaxley, B., & Fraser, B. (2006). Studies of students’ perceptions in science classrooms at the post-compulsory level. Contemporary Approaches to Research on Learning Environments, 161-194. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812774651_0007
  24. Kotsis, K. T. (2005). Didaskalía Tis Fysikís kai Peírama [Teaching Physics & Experiment]. University of Ioannina Publications.
  25. Kotsis, K. T. (2011). Erevnitikí proséngisi tou diachronikoú charaktíra ton enallaktikón ideón sti didaktikí tis Fysikís [A research approach to the timeless nature of alternative ideas in the teaching of Physics]. University of Ioannina Publications.
  26. Kotsis, K. T., Vemis, K., & Kolovos, X. (2002). I ennoiologikí allagí ton enallaktikón ideón ton paidión kai i diárkeia gnósis apó ti didaskalía tous sto dimotikó, stin énnoia tis trivís [The conceptual change of children's alternative ideas and the duration of knowledge, from their teaching at the Primary school, on the friction]. Repository of UOI ''Olympias''.
  27. Kurnaz, M., & Arslan, A. (2011). A thematic review of some studies investigating students’ alternative conceptions about energy. International Journal of Physics & Chemistry Education, 3(1), 51-74. https://doi.org/10.51724/ijpce.v3i1.189
  28. Landau, S., & Everitt, B. (2004). A handbook of statistical analyses using SPSS. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press LLC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203009765
  29. Leibowitz, N., Baum, B., Enden, G., & Karniel, A. (2010). The exponential learning equation as a function of successful trials results in sigmoid performance. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 54(3), 338-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2010.01.006
  30. Libarkin, J., Anderson, S., Science, J., Beilfuss, M., & Boone, W. (2005). Qualitative analysis of college students’ ideas about the Earth: Interviews and open-ended questionnaires. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.1.17
  31. Liu, G., & Fang, N. (2016). Student misconceptions about force and acceleration in physics and engineering mechanics education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(1), 19-29.
  32. Maloney, D., O’Kuma, T., Hieggelke, C., & Van Heuvelen, A. (2001). Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism. American Journal of Physics, 69(1), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1371296
  33. Morrison, J. (2008). Putting the learning curve in context. Journal of Business Research, 61(11), 1182-1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.11.009
  34. Narjaikaew, P. (2013). Alternative conceptions of primary school teachers of science about force and motion. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 88, 250-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.503
  35. Nieminen, P., Savinainen, A., & Viiri, J. (2017). Learning about forces using multiple representations. In D. Treagust, R. Duit, & H. Fischer (Eds.), Multiple representations in physics education. Models and modeling in science education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5_8
  36. Palmer, D. (1993). How consistently do students use their alternative conceptions? Research in Science Education, 23(7), 228-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357065
  37. Panagou, D., Kotsis, K. T., & Stylos G. (2022). An empirical study on the evolution of students’ perceptions in basic concepts of physics of primary and secondary education in Cyprus. Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 25(2), 93-112.
  38. Rapp, D. (2005). Mental models: Theoretical issues for visualizations in science education. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 43-60). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3613-2_4
  39. Schoon, K., & Boone, W. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 82(5), 553-568. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199809)82:5<553::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-8
  40. Shome, S. (2017). Exploring alternative conceptions of force. i wonder..., 44-49.
  41. Smith, D., & Neale, D. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(89)90015-2
  42. Sperandeo-Mineo, R., Fazio, C., & Tarantino, G. (2006). Pedagogical content knowledge development and pre-service physics teacher education: A case study. Research in Science Education, 36, 235-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9004-3
  43. Stylos, G., Evangelaki, G., & Kotsis, K. T. (2008). Misconceptions on classical mechanics by freshman university students: A case study in a Physics Department in Greece. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 1(2), 157-177.
  44. Summers, M. (1992). Improving primary school teachers’ understanding of science concepts‐theory into practice. International Journal of Science Education, 14(1), 25-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069920140104
  45. Taber, K. S. (2008). Conceptual resources for learning science: Issues of transience and grain- size in cognition and cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1027-1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701485082
  46. Taber, K., & Tan, K. (2010). The insidious nature of ‘hard‐core’ alternative conceptions: Implications for the constructivist research programme of patterns in high school students’ and pre‐service teachers’ thinking about ionization energy. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 259-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500691003709880
  47. Thong, W., & Gunstone, R. (2007). Some student conceptions of electromagnetic induction. Research in Science Education, 38, 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9038-9
  48. Topalsan, A., & Bayram, H. (2019). Identifying prospective primary school teachers’ ontologically categorized misconceptions on the topic of “force and motion”. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(1), 85-109.
  49. Turker, F. (2005). Developing a three-tier test to assess high school students’ misconceptions concerning force and motion [Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University].
  50. Tytler, R. (2007). The nature of students’ informal science conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 20(8), 901-927. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200802
  51. Villarino, G. N. (2018). An investigation of students’ conceptual understanding of the concepts of force and energy. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 26(6), 22-61.
  52. Vosniadou, S., (2019). The development of students’ understanding of science. Frontiers in Education, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00032
  53. Wagner, W. (2019). Using IBM® SPSS® statistics for research methods and social science statistics. SAGE.
  54. Wallace, C., & Brooks, L. (2014). Learning to teach elementary science in an experiential, informal context: Culture, learning, and identity. Science Education, 99(1), 174-198. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21138
  55. Webb, P. (1992). Primary science teachers’ understandings of electric current. International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 423-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069920140405
  56. Wells, J., Henderson, R., Traxler, A., Miller, P., & Stewart, J. (2020). Exploring the structure of misconceptions in the force and motion conceptual evaluation with modified module analysis. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(1), 010121(1)-010121(16). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010121
  57. Yalcin, M., Altun, S., Turgut, U., & Akgul, F. (2008). First year Turkish science undergraduates’ understandings and misconceptions of light. Science & Education, 18, 1083-1093. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-008-9157-3
  58. Yürük, N. (2007). A case study of one student’s metaconceptual processes and the changes in her alternative conceptions of force and motion. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(4), 305-325. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75411