Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

DEDUCTIVE REASONING TO TEACH NEWTON’S LAW OF MOTION

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Finding out about and then understanding the forces acting on a moving object, based on a description of the change in motion of this object, is an important part of the conceptual understanding of Newton’s law of motion. Using Hempel’s deductive–normative model for scientific explanation, we developed a deductive explanation task (DET), and we applied this task in teaching students to improve their knowledge about force and motion. The results showed that many students received benefits and reached a good conceptual understanding by using the DET. Also, many students responded that learning physics through deductive thinking was less difficult, and in fact, this method of learning was even interesting. Based on the research results, we present some recommendations and suggestions for further study for more effective physics teaching.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Braaten, M. & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coletta, V. P. & Phillips, J. A. (2005). Interpreting FCI scores: Normalized gain, preinstruction scores, and scientific reasoning ability. American Journal of Physics, 73(12), 1172–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conner, L. & Gunstone, R. (2004). Conscious knowledge of learning: Accessing learning strategies in a final year high school biology class. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12), 1427–1443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P. & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s’ ideas. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finegold, M. & Gorsky, P. (1991). Students’ concepts of force as applied to related physical systems: A research for consistency. International Journal of Science Education, 13(1), 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galili, I. & Bar, V. (1992). Motion implies force: Where to expect vestiges of the misconception? International Journal of Science Education, 14(1), 63–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georghiades, P. (2000). Beyond conceptual change learning in science education focusing on transfer, durability and metacognition. Educational Research, 42(2), 119–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K. & Catrambone, R. (2004). Designing instructional examples to reduce intrinsic cognitive load: Molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures. Instructional Science, 31(1–2), 33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Zwiep, S. (2008). Elementary teachers’ understanding of students’ science, misconceptions: Implications for practice and teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 437–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunstone, R. & Watts, M. (1985). Force and motion. In R. Driver, E. Guesne & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M. & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimoyiannis, A. & Komis, V. (2003). Investigating Greek students’ ideas about forces and motion. Research in Science Education, 33(3), 375–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., Noh, T. & Koh, H. (2005). The influence of students’ cognitive and motivational variables in respect of cognitive conflict and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1037–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, A. (2001). Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts. Science Education, 85(6), 758–768.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, C., Summers, M. & Palacio, D. (1990). A survey of primary school teachers’ conceptions of force and motion. Educational Research, 32(2), 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A. E., Baker, W. P., Didonato, L. & Verdi, M. P. (1993). The role of hypothetico-deductive reasoning and physical analogues of molecular interactions in conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1073–1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, S., Gilmour, M. & Lewis, D. (1991). Words that matter in science and technology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 91(9), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. (1972). Concepts of education. London: Scott, Foreman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299–324). Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, H. & Thomsen, P.V. (1987). Ideas about force and movement among English University students and candidates. In P. Linjse (Ed.), The many faces of teaching and learning mechanics: Proceedings of a conference on physics education (pp. 248–254). Utrecht, the Netherlands.

  • Osborne, J. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozmen, H. (2004). Some student misconceptions in chemistry: A literature review of chemical bonding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 147–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. (2011). Two approaches for finding forces acting on object based on deductive reasoning and the nature of force. Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific International Workshop on Physics Education (AIPE 2011) “New Approaches to Physics Teaching in College and Secondary School”, Seoul, Korea.

  • Park, J. & Han, S. (2002). Using deductive reasoning to promote the change of students’ conceptions about force and motion. International Journal of Science Education, 24(6), 593–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. & Kim, I. (1998). Analysis of students’ responses to contradictory results obtained by simple observation or controlling variables. Research in Science Education, 28(3), 365–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J., Kim, I., Kim, M. & Lee, M. (2001). Analysis of students’ processes of confirmation and falsification of their prior ideas about electrostatics. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1219–1236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. & Lee, I. (2004). Analyzing cognitive or non-cognitive factors involved in the process of physics problem solving in an everyday context. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1577–1596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. & Pak, S. (1997). Students’ responses to experimental evidence based on perceptions of causality and availability of evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J. (2006). Exploring the impact of varying degrees of cognitive conflict in the generation of both subject and pedagogical knowledge as primary trainee teachers learn about shadow formation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1545–1577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepardson, D., Moje, E. & Kennard-McClelland, A. (1994). The impact of a science demonstration on children’s understandings of air pressure. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spall, K., Stanisstreet, M., Dickson, D. & Boyes, E. (2004). Development of school students’ constructions of biology and physics. International Journal of Science Education, 26(7), 787–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. & Litt, A. (2008). Models of scientific explanation. In R. Sun (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of computational psychology (pp. 549–564). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Trumper, R. & Gorsky, P. (1993). Learning about energy: The influence of alternative frameworks, cognitive levels, and closed-mindedness. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 637–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viennot, L. (1979). Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics. European Journal of Science Education, 1(2), 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiser, M. & Amin, T. (2001). “Is heat hot?” Inducing conceptual change by integrating everyday and scientific perspectives on thermal phenomena. Learning and Instruction, 11, 331–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. & Aharon-Kravetsky, S. (2005). Explaining the effects of cognitive conflict and direct teaching for students of different academic levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 829–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chonnam National University, Gwangju, 500-757, Republic of Korea

    Han Su Lee & Jongwon Park

  2. Department of Physics Education, College of Education, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Republic of Korea

    Jongwon Park

Authors
  1. Han Su Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jongwon Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jongwon Park.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, H.S., Park, J. DEDUCTIVE REASONING TO TEACH NEWTON’S LAW OF MOTION. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 11, 1391–1414 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9386-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9386-4

Key words

Search

Navigation