This article was downloaded by: [University of Aegean]

On: 17 February 2013, At: 14:19

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Science

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Students concepts of force

as applied to related physical
systems: A search for consistency
a

M. Finegold & P. Gorsky

TechnionIsrael Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

Version of record first published: 24 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: M. Finegold & P. Gorsky (1991): Students concepts of force as applied
to related physical systems: A search for consistency, International Journal of Science
Education, 13:1, 97-113
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130109

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The
accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently
verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of
the use of this material.

INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 1991, VOL. 13, NO. 1, 97-113

Downloaded by [University of Aegean] at 14:19 17 February 2013

Students' concepts of force as applied

to related physical systems: A search
for consistency
M. Finegold and P. Gorsky, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology,
Haifa, Israel
Recent attempts to categorize students' conceptual understanding of physical phenomena into consistent
and meaningful frameworks have had limited success. We report here on an analytic technique by means
of which we were able to identify what appear to be meaningful conceptual categories of students'
understanding of force. However, we found only very limited support for two often-quoted alternative
frameworks, viz.: (a) if a body is moving, a net force always acts on it in the direction of the motion, and (6)
no forces act on objects at rest.

Introduction
Results of a great deal of research over the past 15 years have shown that students,
prior to any formal instruction in physics, commonly adhere to well developed but
scientifically incorrect beliefs about force. Many of these beliefs are held even after
ostensibly successful courses in physics. Research efforts were also directed at
categorizing these beliefs into higher level conceptual categories and frameworks.
Initial studies (e.g., Viennot 1979, Gilbert and Osborne 1980, Clement 1982, Gilbert
et al. 1982, Watts 1983) identified frameworks that apparently accounted for the
different beliefs. Gilbert and Watts (1983) summarized the most common frameworks as follows:
If a body is not moving there is no force acting on it.
If a body is moving there is a force acting on it in the direction of the motion.
Constant motion requires a constant force (p. 73).
To identify the frameworks, the researchers mentioned above all used a similar
technique described as follows by Watts (1983):
The frameworks described here come from no one pupil. They have been pieced
together from the implicit and explicit conceptions used by the children during the
course of the interview... The frameworks form a composite picture based on ideas
shared by a number of pupils. The need is to develop models of student understanding
that are powerful enough to capture important individual differences, yet not so specific
that the net product is the same number of models as there are pupils (p. 218).
This approach yielded valuable information about how students understand the laws
governing physical phenomena. It yielded no information, however, about how
individual students, with all their conflicting beliefs, apply these same laws to
different objects in given systems.
0950-0693/91 $3-00 1991 Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Downloaded by [University of Aegean] at 14:19 17 February 2013

98

RESEARCH REPORTS

Other researchers have tried to identify conceptual frameworks based on the

response sets of individual students. In an early study, Champagne et al. (1980)
noted that students failed to recognize that the same physical laws apply to objects in
free fall and objects sliding down an inclined plane. Chi et al. (1981) concluded that
the schemata of students who have studied physics are based on physical objects
(springs, inclined planes, etc) and not on physical laws. In an important study,
Halloun and Hestenes (1985 a, 1985 b) tested more than 4000 college students in
Arizona and identified the beliefs adhered to after the study of physics and the extent
to which they are held. In addition, they attempted to identify coherent conceptual
categories and frameworks held by individual students. They failed and concluded:
'However, nearly every student used some mixture of concepts . . . and appeared to
be inconsistent in applying the same concept in different situations' (1985a, p. 1058).
In other words, Halloun and Hestenes (1985 a) were unable to find consistent
conceptual categories within the frameworks employed by individual students.
Clough and Driver (1986) explored students' use of concepts across a number of
different tasks, probing their understanding of pressure, heat and evolution. They
reported that students were not consistent in applying alternative frameworks. More
recently, Reif (1987) conducted a study in which he tried to account for inconsistent
thought. He found that when students who had already studied physics were asked to
explain some physical phenomenon, they invoked 'knowledge fragments' instead of
general knowledge. Reif comments:
In their attempts to apply a concept, novice students rarely invoke the definition of the
concept or other general knowledge... Instead, they rely on various special knowledge
elements stored in memory, try to achieve one of these, and apply it without much
subsequent reasoning (p. 316).
The purpose of our study is to investigate the consistency, if any, with which force
concepts are used by individual students in different, but closely related contexts.
Clough and Driver (1986) discuss the importance of this question, especially as it
relates to the extent to which outcomes of a study are dependent on the tool of inquiry
used:
Many frameworks identified from interview transcripts would presumably then be little
more than artifacts of the methodology, transient solutions devised in an interview
where an answer of some kind is a social imperative. It can be argued, however, that the
use of the same intuitive ideas across contexts which are different, but which scientists
construe similarly, would offer some support for the validity of student frameworks as
commonly available ways of thinking (p. 475).
Research design
Goals
The aims of this research are:
1. To determine the percentage of students who are consistent in their beliefs
about the forces acting on objects at rest and objects in motion.
To determine the percentage of students who consistently apply the correct
Newtonian laws and the percentage who consistently apply alternative
frameworks such as those cited above.
2. For those students who appear to be inconsistent in their beliefs, to identify
their categories of thought and to look for evidence of an underlying logic in
their apparently contradictory beliefs.

STUDENTS' CONCEPTS OF FORCE

99

In addressing these goals, we ask a series of questions about students' conceptual

categories concerning forces. Do students consistently include or exclude:
1. A gravitational force for the book and pendulum at rest?
2. A force opposing gravity for the book and pendulum at rest?
3. A net force acting in the direction of the movement of objects undergoing
periodic, linear and projectile motion?
4. Forces opposing gravity for objects at rest and for the same objects in motion?
We will refer to these questions as research questions 1 to 4.
Participants

Downloaded by [University of Aegean] at 14:19 17 February 2013

A total of 534 university students and high school pupils, 35 of whom were
interviewed, completed the written test described subsequently.
333 university students (designated below as UNIV), 18 of whom were
interviewed, who had recently completed an advanced or standard introductory course in mechanics.
201 high school pupils (grades 10-12) from various urban and rural schools
throughout Israel, distributed as follows:
112 pupils (grades 11-12), 8 of whom were interviewed, who studied
physics at an advanced level (designated below as ADV);
32 pupils (grade 11), 4 of whom were interviewed, who studied physics at
an ordinary level (designated below as ORD);
57 pupils (grade 10), 5 of whom were interviewed, who had not studied
physics (designated below as NO).
The test
We designed a ten-item test, to be administered to university and high school
students, to elicit their beliefs about the forces acting on the following objects (see
Appendix A):
A suspended pendulum bob at rest (Ql).
An oscillating pendulum bob at three different positions, one of which is the
lowest point on its path (Q2 a, b, c).
A book at rest on a table (Q3).
A book moving at a constant velocity on a smooth table (Q4).
A cannonballfiredat a 45 angle at three positions, one of which is the highest
point on its path (Q5 a, b, c).
A ball thrown straight up (Q6).
The test was administered as a written task or as a written task accompanied by an
interview. For every item, the students or pupils were presented with a drawing of
the system and asked to use arrows to show each of the forces acting on the object in
question and to name each force. Those interviewed were also asked to explain their
answers.
Test validity
We used Ebel's (1972) criteria for evaluating content validity: (a) relevance,
(b) objectivity, (c) balance, (d) difficulty, (e) specificity. (A test shows specificity if a

Downloaded by [University of Aegean] at 14:19 17 February 2013

100

RESEARCH REPORTS

test-wise novice in the field covered by the test is generally unable to answer
questions correctly. To the degree that any test measures reading skills or general
intelligence, it lacks specificity.) Ebel (1972) recommends that the first four criteria
be evaluated by a panel of experts and that the fifth be evaluated on an experimental
basis.
Panel members offered several suggestions (primarily regarding the wording of
the questions) that led to changes in the test. One serious criticism concerned the
level of question difficulty. Questions were perceived as being too simple and trivial.
However, on the basis of preliminary test results, this criticism was found to be
unjustified. Regarding the relevance, objectivity, balance and difficulty of the final
version of the test, panel members agreed that the test met the specifications.
In order to evaluate specificity, eight intelligent high school pupils (grades 9-12)
who had not studied physics were asked to take the test. Six pupils answered all the
questions incorrectly while the other two declined to answer any of the questions on
the ground that they did not know the answers and had no basis for making
intelligent guesses. We conclude, therefore, that the test meets the criterion for
specificity described by Ebel (1972).
Test reliability
Two reliability measures were used. First, the reliability of the test questions in
eliciting identical answers on different occasions and, second, the reliability of the
scoring process.
For the test-retest reliability, a group of 20 pupils was retested one month after
the initial test in order to determine if the same answers were given for both tests.
The chi-square test was used to evaluate the relation between the two sets of answers.
The chi-square statistic measures the discrepancy between observed and expected
frequencies. It was found that for all ten questions, none of the discrepancies was
statistically significant at the 5% level or less. It was concluded, therefore, that pupils
answered questions similarly on both occasions.
For the reliability of the scoring process, 25 response sets were randomly chosen
and marked by two experienced judges. The extent of agreement between judges, the
kappa coefficient, was calculated. Kappa values for the 10 questions ranged from 0-82
to 100.
Method of analysis
Test results were analysed using the data base capabilities of the Lotus 123 program.
Data (student responses) were entered as follows:
ID

Ql

Q2a

Q2b

G + Fm G
NF Fm
Fm

Q2c

Q3...

Q6

G + Fm C ... G + Fm
NF... FM
Fm

534

Each row presents a Student Identification Number (ID) and a coded response
analysis. For example, ' C signifies a correct answer, 'G' that only gravity was

STUDENTS' CONCEPTS OF FORCE

101

Downloaded by [University of Aegean] at 14:19 17 February 2013

indicated in the response, 'Fm' that only a non-scientific force in the direction of the
motion was shown, 'G + Fm' that both gravity and a non-scientific force were cited,
and 'NF' that no forces at all were indicated. The program counts the types and
frequencies of errors. In order to identify and search for conceptual categories, data
queries were created that scanned the entire data base. Some examples of these data
queries follow.
1. What percentage of pupils neglected the tension in the string for the
pendulum bob at rest (Ql) but included the tension for the pendulum in
motion (Q2a, Q2b, Q2c)?
2. What percentage of pupils included a force in the direction of the pendulum
bob's motion as it rose and fell (Q2a, Q2c), but neglected such a force when the
bob passed through its equilibrium point (Q2b)?
3. What percentage of pupils included a force in the direction of the cannonball's
motion as it rose and fell (Q5a, Q5c), but neglected such a force when the
cannonball reached its maximum height (Q5b)?
4. What percentage of pupils met the criteria for data queries 2 and 3 described
above.
One hundred and eighty data queries were initially listed. Some were extremely
complex, analysing responses from all ten questions. Each query presents an attempt
to identify students' patterns of thought, which may be consistent or inconsistent.
For example, we found that very few respondees met the criterion for data query 4
(see above) despite its symmetry. In trying to identify consistent student frameworks, we carried out the following procedures:
1. Define conceptual categories to account for different response sets and write
the appropriate data queries.
2. Analyse the output generated by the queries (the output consists of
percentages of students whose responses match the different conceptual
categories).
3. Revise the categories and queries to account for the remaining data.
These steps were carried out iteratively until we had identified categories to account
for most of the response sets. All told, about 280 different queries were examined.
Research findings
Students' beliefs about the forces acting on objects at rest

To answer research questions 1 and 2 regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the

force of gravity and the forces which oppose it, we studied responses to questions
about two systems at rest: a suspended pendulum bob and a book on a table. For each
one of these systems, the vast majority of all respondees indicated the correct
Newtonian forces or no forces or gravity only.
Our next step was to check answers for consistency - was the same rule applied in
both systems? As seen from table 1, respondees, except for the high school pupils in
the ORD and NO groups, adhere to highly consistent beliefs for the two different
systems at rest. Of particular interest is the finding that less than 10% of the pupils
who had not studied physics (NO) were consistent in the Aristotelian belief that no
forces act on objects at rest. Gilbert and Watts (1983) pointed out that many

102

RESEARCH REPORTS

Table 1. Percentages of respondees applying consistent force arrays for

both systems at rest.

UNIV
ADV
ORD
NO

Correct

No Force

Mg only

Consistent

93
94
31
0

0
0
0
9

0
3
25
68

93
97
56
77

Downloaded by [University of Aegean] at 14:19 17 February 2013

Mg = gravitational force.

researchers (e.g., Osborne 1980, Helm 1981, Watts and Zylbersztajn 1981, Minstrell
1982, Watts 1983) reported that the Aristotelian 'no force' belief is a 'common
alternative framework' among pupils who have not studied physics. Our findings
suggest, however, that the 'no force' belief is neither common nor an alternative
framework.
Among pupils who had not studied physics (NO), we found that only 9%
responded that no forces act on the book at rest, while 17% of the same group
responded that no forces act on the pendulum bob at rest. These findings led us to
conclude that the belief is not commonly held, at least among the pupils tested in our
sample.
According to Engel and Driver (1982), a framework ought to be a description of a
perspective from which a prediction of events can be made. That is, in order to be
considered a framework, a belief, or set of beliefs, should make it possible for an
observer to predict certain events. In this case, the events to be predicted are pupils'
responses to the question: 'What force or forces, if any, are acting on given objects at
rest?'
Of the pupils in the NO group who responded that no force acts on the pendulum
bob at rest (17%), only slightly more than half (9%) consistently applied this belief in
both systems at rest, pendulum bob and book. We suggest, therefore, that the
Aristotelian 'no force' belief is not applied consistently and does not meet the
criterion of a framework as defined by Engel and Driver (1982). Altogether, more
than 90% of the pupils who had not studied physics recognized the presence of a
gravitational force acting on objects at rest on or near the earth's surface in at least
one system.
We next sought to identify the inconsistent beliefs held by the ordinary level
pupils (ORD) and those who had not studied physics (NO). Table 2 shows the
percentages of pupils who adhered to various inconsistent beliefs.
Column A shows the percentage of pupils who indicated the correct Newtonian
forces acting on the pendulum bob at rest but indicated only a gravitational force
acting on the book at rest. Column B shows pupils who correctly identified the forces
acting on the book, but failed to identify the upward force exerted by the string on the
pendulum bob. Column C shows pupils who indicated a gravitational force acting on
the pendulum bob, but failed to note a gravitational force acting on the book.
Column D shows pupils who noted a gravitational force acting on the book, but
concluded that neither gravity nor any other force acted on the pendulum bob.
Apparently no general law or laws (e.g., 'The total net force acting on a body at
rest is zero' or 'gravity always acts on objects on or near the earth's surface') govern

STUDENTS' CONCEPTS OF FORCE

103

Table 2. Percentages of two groups (ORD and NO) applying inconsistent

force arrays for both systems at rest.
Pendulum
Book

A
Correct
Mg only

B
Mg only
Correct

C
Mg only
No Force

D
No Force
Mg only

Total

ORD
NO

13
0

31
5

0
14

0
4

44
23

Downloaded by [University of Aegean] at 14:19 17 February 2013

Mg = gravitational force.

the thinking of these two groups; it appears, as Reif (1987) pointed out, that specific
rules exist for specific situations: a force law for objects at rest on surfaces, for objects
suspended from strings, etc.
Students' beliefs about the forces acting on objects in motion
Here, we seek to answer research question 3: does the motion of an object always
imply the presence of a net force acting in the direction of the movement? This
question relates to objects undergoing periodic, linear and projectile motion. To
begin, we identified the beliefs adhered to by the students for each of the three
systems examined. Next, we organized the different beliefs into more general
conceptual categories.
Students' beliefs about periodic motion: We studied students' beliefs about the forces
acting on an oscillating pendulum bob at different points along its path. Nine
different arrays were identified, each of which seems to show an internal logic. More
than 86% of all the respondees (excluding the ORD group) adhered to one of the nine
arrays described below. In arrays A to E, we see that the students indicated the same
force configuration at each point along the pendulum bob's path.
A. The correct Newtonian forces.
B. Correct Newtonian forces and a force in the direction of the motion of the
pendulum bob.
C. Gravity only.
D. Gravity and a force in the direction of the motion.
E. Only a force in the direction of the motion.
In arrays F to I, the motion force on the pendulum bob momentarily disappears
when it reaches its equilibrium position.
F. Correct Newtonian forces at each of the three positions and a motion force at
the two positions above the equilibrium point.
G. Gravity at each of the three positions and a motion force at the two positions
above the equilibrium point.
H. A motion force at the two positions above the equilibrium point and gravity
at the equilibrium point.
I. A motion force at the two positions above the equilibrium point and no force
at the equilibrium point.
Interview data revealed several explanations for the omission of a motion force at the
equilibrium point. For example, Uri, a 10th grade student who had not studied

Downloaded by [University of Aegean] at 14:19 17 February 2013

104

RESEARCH REPORTS

physics, said that some force was present within the pendulum bob as it oscillated.
However, since this force periodically changed direction, it was cancelled at the
equilibrium position. Four of the five pupils who had not studied physics (NO) and
two of the four ordinary level pupils (ORD) also perceived force as an internal, rather
than as some external entity acting on the object.
A more typical answer, common to pupils who had studied physics, drew
conclusions about forces on the basis of assumptions concerning energy. For
example, interviewees claimed that when the pendulum reached its equilibrium
position no potential energy was present and that therefore no force was acting.
Ordinary level pupils were generally unable to distinguish between the concepts of
force and energy while the advanced students were able to identify their errors and
reach more appropriate Newtonian conclusions.
Arrays D, E, H and I were representative only of pupils who had not studied
physics.
Students' beliefs about linear translational motion: Our results indicate that more than
82% of the respondees in each group adhere to some reasonable or logically
defensible belief about the forces acting on objects in linear motion. The various
force arrays designated by students for a book in motion on a frictionless table (Q4)
were:
The correct Newtonian forces (Mg + N).
The correct Newtonian forces and a force acting in the direction of the
movement (Mg + N + Fm).
The force of gravity and a force acting in the direction of the movement
(Mg + Fm).
Only a force acting in the direction of the movement (Fm).
Students' beliefs about one- and two-dimensional projectile motion: We studied

students' beliefs about the forces acting on two objects in flight: a cannonball fired
from a cannon (Q5a, 5b, 5c) and a particle projected straight up (Q6). Questions 5a, b
and c (Appendix A) elicit from the students their beliefs about the forces acting on a
cannonball at three points along its trajectory. Question 6 elicits students' beliefs
about the forces acting on a particle as it moves upward.
For questions about a projectile moving upward or downward (Q5a, 5c, Q6)
nearly all respondees selected one of the following three arrays, although not
necessarily in a consistent manner: gravity directed downward or a force in the
direction of the motion or both. For the cannonball at the height of its trajectory
(Q5b), some students indicated that no force is acting.
Student responses were examined for consistency. Inconsistent arrays were
characterized by contradictions. For example, different answers were given for
questions 5a and 6, or gravity was indicated in some answers in which the objects
are rising or falling, but not in all of them. We found that more than 75% of all
respondees adhered to one of the six consistent and logically defensible arrays shown
in table 3 (arrays 2-6 show variations on the concept of an impetus force, Fm).
Objects in motion: students' conceptual categories

Here, an attempt is made to answer research question 3: do students consistently

include or exclude a net force acting in the direction of the movement of objects

STUDENTS' CONCEPTS OF FORCE

105

Table 3. Consistent force arrays for projectile motion.

Arrays
1
2
3
4
5
6

Q5a

Q5b

Q5c

Q6

G + Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm

G + Fm

G + Fm

G + Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm

Fm

NF

G + Fm
Fm

G
G
G
Fm

Fm

Downloaded by [University of Aegean] at 14:19 17 February 2013

Fm = a force in the direction of the motion; G = gravity; NF = No forces.

undergoing periodic, linear or projectile motion? Furthermore, evidence is sought to

show that students' individual beliefs may be categorized into coherent and
internally consistent conceptual frameworks. Table 4 presents students' beliefs
about the forces acting on the objects in each of the cases investigated. The categories
are as follows.
The correct Newtonian forces are noted.
A motion force is consistently included.
5-8 A motion force acts on objects undergoing translational, but not periodic
motion.
9-11 A motion force acts on all objects investigated except the pendulum bob
at its equilibrium position.
12-13 Motion forces appear only in oscillatory motion.
14
Motion forces appear only in linear motion.
15-16 Motion forces appear only in projectile motion.
1

Each of categories 2-4 is internally consistent. In each of them, the same rules are
applied to the objects regardless of the kind of motion involved. For example, in
category 2, forces that oppose the earth's gravitational force are correctly applied,
and, in addition, a force in the direction of the motion appears in every case. In
category 3, forces that oppose the earth's gravitational force (N, T) are consistently
excluded while a force always appears in the direction of the movement. However,
categories 2-4, despite their logical appeal, are rarely applied (the percentages of
respondees who adhered to each of the sixteen categories appears in Appendix B).
Each of categories 9-11 is also internally consistent. A force acting in the
direction of the motion appears in all cases except at the equilibrium point of the
oscillating pendulum bob. For example, in category 11, except for the equilibrium
point at which no force is indicated, the only force noted is a force acting in the
direction of the motion of the object. These categories too are not widely used.
We now consider the validity of the 'motion implies a force..." alternative
framework. As cited previously, Engel and Driver (1982) define a framework as a
description of a perspective from which a prediction of events can be made. We have
already noted that categories 24 and 9-11 are generally not used by students. A
second approach looked only for the consistent use of a motion force acting on the
objects. Here we ignore beliefs regarding gravity and opposing forces, using as a
criterion for consistency only the presence of a motion force in every case or in every
case except that of the bob at its equilibrium point. Few additional students (2-5%)
were found who met this criterion.

Downloaded by [University of Aegean] at 14:19 17 February 2013

ON

Table 4. Consistent conceptual categories for periodic (Q2a, b, c), linear (Q4) and projectile motion
(Q5a,b,c, Q6).
Periodic motion
Conceptual
category

Q2a

Q2b

Q2c

G+T
G+T+Fm
G+Fm
Fm
G+T

G +T
G+T+Fm
G + Fm
Fm
G+T

G+T
G+T+Fm
G + Fm
Fm
G+T

G+T
G +T
G+T+Fm
G + Fm
Fm
G+T+Fm
G + Fm
G +T
G+T
G+T

G +T
G +T
G+T
G
NF
G+T
G
G+T
G +T
G+T

G +T
G +T
G+T+Fm
G + Fm
Fm
G+T+Fm
G + Fm
G +T
G +T
G+T

1
2
3
4

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Linear
motion
Q4

G+N
G+N+Fm
G + Fm
Fm
G+N+Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm
G+N+Fm
G+N+Fm
G + Fm
Fm
G+N
G+N
G+N+Fm
G+N
G+N

Fm = a motion force; G = gravity; T = tension; N = normal; NF = no forces.

Projectile motion
Q5a

QSb

Q5c

G + Fm
G + Fm

G + Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm
Fm
Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm
impetus-like
G + Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm

G + Fm
G + Fm

Fm

Fm
G
G
G

Fm

G + Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm
Fm
G
G
G

G + Fm

Q6

Fm

G
G
G
G
G
G
G + Fm
G + Fm
impetus-like

G
Fm

G + Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm
G + Fm

G + Fm

iso
o

pi

Downloaded by [University of Aegean] at 14:19 17 February 2013

STUDENTS' CONCEPTS OF FORCE

107

We have noted previously research findings claiming that students often use the
'motion implies a force...' explanatory framework (Viennot 1979, Clement 1982,
1983, Watts 1983). However, all of the researchers report on students working with
single systems and not across different systems. In light of the above data, we suggest
that this framework is not a good predictor of students' beliefs concerning objects
undergoing periodic, linear or projectile motion. This, we believe, is so both before
and after the study of physics.
We now consider evidence showing that students do adhere, however, to logical
and meaningful conceptual categories. We content that each of categories 1-16 is
internally consistent and may be understood in terms of rules, some of which are
scientifically acceptable. Having already discussed the consistent logical bases of
categories 1-4 and 9-11, we now turn to the seemingly inconsistent and fragmented
categories, 5-8 and 12-16 (table 4). Here, scientific and non-scientific beliefs coexist.
Categories 12 and 13 consistently include correct forces acting on the five objects
undergoing translational motion. For the oscillating pendulum bob, however,
students included a force acting in the direction of movement of the bob at the two
positions above its equilibrium point. Our interview data showed that some students
drew conclusions about forces on the basis of assumptions concerning energy.
Reif (1987) and Chi et al. (1981) point out that some students seem to be unable to
apply scientific laws in their most general form and are influenced by the objects that
make up the system. This finding is supported by our observation that students
whose responses match categories 1416 apparently had difficulty in understanding
the motion of bodies acted on by impulsive (short-term) forces. For example,
category 14 includes a force acting in the direction of the motion of the book (Fm),
but does not include a force acting in the direction of the motion of the objects in
flight. Category 15 shows a motion force for projectiles, but not for linear
displacement. Categories 5-8 consistently apply a motion force for linear and
projectile, but not for periodic motion.
All of categories 1-16 indicate consistent, internal logic. More than two-thirds of
the university students (UNIV) and the advanced high school pupils (ADV) used
one of these categories. We conclude, therefore, that these students may have used
consistent and meaningful conceptual categories to describe the forces acting on
objects in motion.
The responses of nearly 70% of the ordinary level pupils (ORD) and 90% of the
pupils who had not studied physics (NO) did not match any of the 16 categories. We
conclude, therefore, that their conceptual categories are neither logical nor
meaningful at least according to the rules applied in this study.
Since this research is based on written responses without back-up interviews, we
cannot claim that students actually use such categories or the rules that seemingly
underlie them. Only further research in which, for example, students are asked to
explain their responses, can justify such a claim. However, given the small number of
categories (11) used by more than two-thirds of the university students (UNIV) and
advanced high school pupils (ADV), it is reasonable to assume that these categories
are indeed meaningful.
Students' conceptual categories concerning reactive forces: objects at rest and
objects in motion

Here, an attempt is made to answer research question 4: do students consistently

include or exclude the forces opposing gravity for objects at rest and for the same

Downloaded by [University of Aegean] at 14:19 17 February 2013

108

RESEARCH REPORTS

objects in motion? Two objects were investigated, a pendulum bob and a book on a
table. Tables 5 and 6 present the findings.
At least 75% of all the respondees in each group answered consistently for the
systems at rest and in motion. They either included or excluded forces opposing the
force of gravity (T and N). Inconsistencies appeared in the pendulum problems: 25%
of the ordinary level pupils (ORD) and 14% of those who hadn't studied physics
(NO) excluded tension for the system at rest and included tension for the system in
motion. A 10th grade student who had not studied physics, said, in support of his
claim that the string exerted a force on the moving bob: 'When the bob is moving,
something must be holding it up.' A parallel belief was not identified for the book in
motion. Table 7 shows how the reactive forces (N and T) were perceived in all
systems where such forces appeared.
Table 7 shows that 79% of the university students (UNIV) and the advanced level
high school pupils (ADV) adhered to consistent beliefs, either correct or incorrect.
Table 5. Beliefs regarding the presence of a force exerted by the string on
the pendulum bob at rest and in motion (percentages of respondees).
Pendulum in motion
% including T

% excluding T

93
84
46
0

1
1
0
2

2
4
25
14

4
8
29
84

% including T

Pendulum
at
rest

UNIV
ADV
ORD
NO
% excluding T

UNIV
ADV
ORD
NO

Table 6. Beliefs regarding the presence of a force exerted by the table on a

book at rest and in motion (percentages of respondees).
Book in motion
% including N

% excluding N

90
87
44
4

0
0
0
0

2
1
6
4

5
8
50
93

% including N
Book
at
rest

UNIV
ADV
ORD
NO
% excluding N

UNIV
ADV
ORD
NO

STUDENTS' CONCEPTS OF FORCE

109

Table 7. Conceptual categories relating to forces that oppose gravity for

both systems, pendulum and book, at rest and in motion (percentages
of respondees).
Pendulum (at rest and in motion)
% including T

% excluding T

84
79
25

3
2
19
28

0
3
0
0

0
0
6
61

% including N

UNIV
ADV

Downloaded by [University of Aegean] at 14:19 17 February 2013

Book at
rest and
in motion

/\l)

1 \

\Jt\LJ

NO
% excluding N

UNIV
ADV
ORD
NO

However, the ordinary level high school pupils (ORD) and those who had not
studied physics (NO) were inconsistent in noting the reactive forces; they
experienced difficulty in recognizing the tension in the string as a force acting on the
pendulum bob.
Conceptual frameworks
Table 8 shows the percentages of students who answered all ten questions correctly;
that is, percentages of students who consistently applied Newton's laws for objects at
rest and for objects in motion.
In addition to the category in which the correct Newtonian forces were
consistently applied, 15 different categories describing students' understanding of
the forces acting on objects in motion were identified. These categories were crosstabulated with those describing objects at rest (beyond the identification of reactive
forces), and an even larger number of conceptual frameworks was identified. This
technique yielded almost as many models as there were students and provided no
useful information.

Summary of findings
Many students in the sample, both prior to and after formal instruction in
physics, adhere to scientifically incorrect beliefs about the forces acting on
objects at rest and/or in motion.
Prior to learning physics, less than 10% of the pupils tested consistently adhered
to the Aristotelian belief that no forces act on objects at rest. After instruction,
this belief was virtually non-existent.
The 'motion imples a net force' framework is not consistently applied, even by
pupils who have not studied physics. We would expect such pupils to indicate
consistently some force acting in the direction of the motion of any moving object
since they presumably believe that a force sustains the motion. This expectation
was not supported by the data.

110

RESEARCH REPORTS

Table 8. Percentages of respondees giving correct answers for all

questions.
Respondees (%)

UNIV

ADV

Downloaded by [University of Aegean] at 14:19 17 February 2013

ORD
NO

46
29
0
0

Apparently consistent and coherent conceptual categories were identified

regarding the forces acting on objects in motion. That is, the response sets
recurred and appear to be logical. More than two-thirds of the university
students and advanced high school pupils adhere to one of 11 such categories.
Frameworks probably exist in students' minds as repositories for physics subject
matter; however, except for students who consistently apply a Newtonian
framework, they do not provide a perspective from which students' beliefs about
physical behaviour may be predicted.
Conclusions and implications for instruction
This study shows that, like their counterparts abroad, many Israeli students, after
studying physics, either do not understand, or have great difficulty in applying,
Newton's laws to drawings of systems. The difficulties described here and in other
research work seem to reflect a problem that pervades all of education, that of the
distinction between the particular and the general. As Reif (1987) pointed out, many
students are unable to identify particular instances of general rules or laws, often
being unable to identify the important elements in a system and to reach appropriate
conclusions.
These difficulties are greatly aggravated in physics instruction due to the
interference resulting from students' prior knowledge. We need conceptual change
strategies that focus not only on eliminating non-science beliefs like motion forces,
but which develop abilities to apply general rules to particular instances and to
extract general rules from particular instances. Toward this end, we are currently
designing software simulations of physical situations not reproducible in the
laboratory. These simulations present the logical outcomes of non-scientific beliefs
such as a book falling through a table as an outcome of neglecting the reactive force
exerted by the table. In this way, we attempt to refute pupils' prior knowledge and to
help them to grasp the general applicability of physical laws over a wide range of
topics and situations (Finegold and Gorsky 1988).

References
CHI, M., FELTOVICH, P. and GLASER, R. 1981, Categorization and representation of physics

problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, Vol. 5, pp. 121-152.

A., KLOPFER, L. and SOLOMON, C. 1980, Factors influencing the learning of
classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, Vol. 48, pp. 1074-1079.
CLEMENT, J. 1982, Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of
Physics, Vol. 50, pp. 60-71.

CHAMPAGNE,

STUDENTS' CONCEPTS OF FORCE

111

CLEMENT, J. 1983, Students' alternative conceptions in mechanics: A coherent system of

preconceptions? A paper presented at the Conference on Students' Misconceptions in

Science and Mathematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
CLOUGH, E. and DRIVER, R. 1986, A study of consistency in the use of students' conceptual
frameworks across different task contexts. Science Education, Vol. 70, No. 4,
pp. 473-496.
EBEL, R. 1972, Essentials of educational measurement (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2nd edition).

Downloaded by [University of Aegean] at 14:19 17 February 2013

ENGEL, E. and DRIVER, R. 1982, Children's interpretations of scientific phenomena-analysis of

descriptive data. A paper presented at the British Educational Research Association

Annual Conference, University St. Andrews, Scotland.
FINEGOLD, M. and GORSKY, P. 1988, Learning about forces: Simulating the outcomes of
pupils' misconceptions. Instructional Science, Vol. 17, pp. 251-261.
GILBERT, J. and OSBORNE, R. 1980, Identifying science students concepts: The IAI approach.
In W. Archenhold (ed.), Cognitive Development Research in Science and Mathematics
(Centre for Studies in Science Education, University of Leeds, Leeds).
GILBERT, J., WATTS, M. and OSBORNE, J. 1982, Students' conceptions of ideas in mechanics.
Physics Educ, Vol. 17, pp. 62-66.
GILBERT, J. and WATTS, M. 1983, Misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing
perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, Vol. 10, pp. 61-98.
HALLOUN, I. and HESTENES, D. 1985 a, The initial state of college students. American Journal
of Physics, Vol. 53, pp. 1043-1055.
HALLOUN, I. and HESTENES, D. 1985 b, Common sense concepts about motion. American
Journal of Physics, Vol. 53, pp. 1056-1065.
HELM, H. 1981, Conceptual misunderstandings in physics. In Perspective 3, School of
Education, University of Exeter, Exeter.
MINSTRELL, J. 1982, Explaining the 'at rest' condition of an object. Physics Teacher, Vol. 20,
pp. 10-14.
OSBORNE, R. 1980, Force: Learning in science project. Working paper No. 16. University of
Waikato, Hamilton, NZ.
REIF, F. 1987, Instructional design, cognition, and technology: Applications to the teaching of
scientific concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 24, pp. 309-324.
VIENNOT, L. 1979, Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics. European Journal of
Science Education, Vol. 1, pp. 205-221.
WATTS, D. 1983, A study of schoolchildren's alternative frameworks of the concept of force.
European Journal of Science Education, Vol. 4, pp. 217-230.
WATTS, D. and ZYLBERSZTAJN, A. 1981, A survey of some children's ideas about force. Physics
Education, Vol. 15, pp. 360-365.

Correspondence
Dr M. Finegold, Department of Education in Technology & Science, Technion-Israel
Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa 32000, Israel.

Appendix A: test questions

In the questions that follow:
ignore the forces resulting from air pressure and air friction,
objects in motion are rigid and are not spinning.
Draw arrows showing each of the forces acting on the objects in question and name
each force. Do not show only the total net force.

Questions 1 and 2 describe a mathematical pendulum - a point mass suspended from

a cord of negligible mass.

112

RESEARCH REPORTS

1. A stationary pendulum bob.

2. The pendulum bob, at each of the three positions below, is moving from left to
right. Draw and label each of the forces, if any, acting on the bob at all three
positions.
2b: The bob is at its
lowest point

Downloaded by [University of Aegean] at 14:19 17 February 2013

2a

2c

T
3. A book is at rest on a flat table:

4. A book is moving on a flat, frictionless table from left to right. The movement
resulted from the release of a compressed spring and, at this moment, no physical
contact exists between the spring and the book.
II'

5. A cannonball, shot from a cannon, follows the trajectory shown below. Draw and
label each of the forces, if any, acting on the cannonball at the points labelled
5a, 5b and 5c.
The ball is at
its highest point
5b A

5a *

STUDENTS' CONCEPTS OF FORCE

113

6. A particle is thrown straight up from point A. Draw and label the force or forces, if
any, acting on the particle as it passes upward through point B.

Downloaded by [University of Aegean] at 14:19 17 February 2013

Appendix B
Table 9. Students whose responses matched the categories shown in
table 4 (percentages).
Category

UNIV

ADV

ORD

NO

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

46
0
0
0
3
0
0
7
3
0
0
2
3
3
0
5

29
4
0
0
5
0
3
3
7
0
0
2
0
1
4
9

0
0
0
0
0
6
13
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
6
0

0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
0

Total

72

67

31

10