Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Development and differentiation of force and energy concepts for animate and inanimate objects in children and adolescents

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We looked at how far students aged 10–17 years differentiate between the force and energy concepts for animates and inanimates. Within a structured interview format, participants described situations in which inanimate objects and animate agents interacted. Results showed that the younger students made no distinction between the two concepts for the inanimate objects. They regarded force and energy as the objects’ intrinsic properties, related to their height and weight, and tended to attribute both concepts to animates rather than to inanimates. With age, force came to be seen in terms of interactions, while energy continued to be considered in relation to the physical dimensions that affected it (i.e., height or weight). Even so, force continued to impinge on energy, the reverse being less frequent. Conceptions remained unchanged for the animate agents, insofar as younger and older students alike expressed undifferentiated force/energy conceptions, relating both force and energy to the agents’ effort or the results of their action.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barab, S. A., Squire, K., & Dueber, B. (2000). Supporting authenticity through participatory learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 37–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayraktar, S. (2009). Misconceptions of Turkish pre-service teachers about force and motion. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 273–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besson, U., & De Ambrosis, A. (2014). Teaching energy concepts by working on themes of cultural and environmental value. Science & Education, 23, 1309–1338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Solomon, J. (1983). Life world and science world—pupils’ ideas about energy. Entropy in the school. Volume 1. Budapest: Roland Eotvos Physical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brook, A., & Driver, R. (1984). Aspects of secondary students’ understanding of energy. Leeds: University of Leeds, Children’s Learning in Science Project.

  • Brown, D. E. (2014). Students’ conceptions as dynamically emergent structures. Science & Education, 23, 1463–1483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. (1991). Knowledge acquisition: enrichment or conceptual change? In S. Carey & R. Gelman (Eds.), Epigenesis of mind: studies in biology and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case, R. (1992). The mind’s staircase. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The process and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: a theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. (1982). Students’ misconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, T. L. (2006). Stage-like patterns in the development of conceptions of energy. In X. Liu & W. Boone (Eds.), Applications of Rasch measurement in science education (pp. 111–136). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domenech, J. L., Gil-Perez, D., Gras-Marti, A., Guisasola, J., Torregrosa, J. M., Salinas, J., Trumper, R., Valdes, P., & Vilches, A. (2007). Teaching of energy issues: a debate proposal for a global reorientation. Science & Education, 16, 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R. (1984). Learning the energy concept in school: empirical results from the Philippines and West Germany. Physics Education, 19, 59–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R. (1987). Should energy be introduced as something quasi-material? International Journal of Science Education, 9, 139–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, S. A., & Gottfried, G. M. (1996). Children’s causal explanations for animate and inanimate motion. Child Development, 67, 1970–1987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, R., & Spelke, E. S. (1981). The development of thoughts about animate and inanimate objects: implications for research in social cognition. In J. H. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), The development of social cognition in children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustone, R. F., & Watts, D. M. (1985). Force and motion. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberhien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 84–104). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gyberg, P., & Lee, F. (2010). The construction of facts: preconditions for meaning in teaching energy in Swedish classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1173–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halford, G. S. (1999). The development of intelligence includes the capacity to process relations of greater complexity. In M. Anderson (Ed.), The development of intelligence (pp. 193–213). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., & Phillips, S. (1998). Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 803–831.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (2003). Mécanique. Paris: Dunod.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2004). Vitalistic causality in young children’s naive biology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 356–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meaning of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2, 5–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koliopoulos, D., & Argyropoulou, M. (2011). Constructing qualitative energy concepts in a formal educational context with 6–7 year old students. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 5(1), 63–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, C., Palacio, D., & Summers, M. (1992). Surveys of English primary teachers’ conceptions of force, energy and materials. Science Teacher Education, 76, 339–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Küçük, M., Çepni, S., & Gökdere, M. (2005). Turkish primary school students’ alternative conceptions about work, power and energy. Journal of Physics Teacher Education, 3, 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1977). A function for thought experiments. In T. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension: selected studies in scientific tradition and change (pp. 240–265). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H.-S., & Liu, O. L. (2009). Assessing learning progression of energy concepts across middle school grades: the knowledge integration perspective. Science Education, 94, 665–688.

  • Lee, H. S., & Liu, O. L. (2010). Assessing learning progression of energy concepts across middle school grades: the knowledge integration perspective. Science Education, 94, 665–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijnse, P. (1990). Energy between the life-world of pupils and the world of physics. Science Education, 74, 571–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M., & Eylon, B. (2011). Science learning and instruction: taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, M., & Treagust, D. (2010). Students’ conceptions about energy and the human body. Science Education International, 21(3), 144–159.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Megalakaki, O. (2008). Pupils’ conceptions of force in inanimates and animates. European Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 339–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Megalakaki, O. (2009). Développement conceptuel de la notion d’énergie relative à des objets inanimés et animés chez les élèves de 10 à 17 ans [Conceptual development of the concept of energy on inanimate and animate objects among students 10 to 17 years]. Psychologie Française [French Psychology], 54, 11–29.

  • Megalakaki, O., & Tiberghien, A. (2011). A qualitative approach of modelling activities for the notion of energy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9, 157–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Megalakaki, O., & Vosniadou, S. (2004). Differentiating force and energy: children’s understanding of the concepts of energy and force. Paper presented at the 7th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Athens.

  • Megalakaki, O., Tijus, C., Baiche, R., & Poitrenaud, S. (2012). The effect of semantics on problem solving is to reduce relational complexity. Thinking and Reasoning, 18(2), 159–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining the “at rest” condition of an object. The Physics Teacher, 20(1), 10–14.

  • Neumann, K., Boone, W., Viering, T., & Fischer, H. E. (2013). Towards a learning progression of energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 162–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opitz, S., Harms, U., Neumann, K., Kowalzik, K., & Frank, A. (2014). Students’ energy concepts at the transition between primary and secondary school. Research in Science Education (RISE). doi:10.1007/s11165-014-9444-8

  • Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: the implications of childrens’ science. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauen, S. (1996). Children’s reasoning about the interaction of forces. Child Development, 67, 2728–2742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. New York: Routledge.

  • Piaget, J. (1972). Understanding causality. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1974). The child’s construction of quantities. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proffitt, D. R. & Gilden, D. L. (1989). Understanding natural dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance, 15(2), 384–93.

  • Siegler, R. S. (1983). Information processing approaches to cognitive development. In W. Kessen (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. History, theory, and methods (pp. 129–212). New York: Wiley.

  • Smith, C., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: a case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21, 177–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. (1992). Getting to know about energy—in school and society. London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stead, B. (1980). Energy (Working Paper 17). Hamilton: University of Waikato.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trumper, R. (1998). A longitudinal study of physics students’ conceptions on energy in pre-service training for high school teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(4), 311–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viennot, L. (2001). Reasoning in physics, the part of common sense. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental meanings of the earth: a study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Skopeliti, I. (2014). Conceptual change from the framework theory side of the fence. Science & Education, 23, 1427–1445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. M. (1983). A study of school children’s alternative frameworks of the concept of force. European Journal of Science Education, 5, 217–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. M., & Gilbert, J. K. (1983). Enigmas in school science: students’ conceptions for scientifically associated words. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1, 161–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. M., & Zylberstajn, A. (1981). A survey of some children’s ideas about force. Physics Education, 16, 360–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiser, M. (1986). The differentiation of heat and temperature: history of science and novice-expert shift. In S. Strauss (Ed.), Ontogeny, phylogeny and historical development (pp. 28–48). Norwood: Ablex.

  • Wiser, M., & Amin, T. (2001). “Is heat hot?” Inducing conceptual change by integrating everyday and scientific perspectives on thermal phenomena. Learning and Instruction, 11, 331–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiser, M., & Carey, S. (1983). When heat and temperature were one. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 267–298). New York: Academic Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CRP-CPO EA 7273, University of Picardie, Amiens, France

    Olga Megalakaki

  2. LEAD, CNRS UMR 5022, University of Burgundy, Dijon, France

    Jean Pierre Thibaut

Authors
  1. Olga Megalakaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean Pierre Thibaut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olga Megalakaki.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 4 Defining criteria for the four conceptions identified for force and energy in the case of the inanimate object
Full size table

Appendix 2

Table 5 Defining criteria for the four conceptions identified for the force and energy in the case of the animate agent
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Megalakaki, O., Thibaut, J.P. Development and differentiation of force and energy concepts for animate and inanimate objects in children and adolescents. Res Sci Educ 46, 457–480 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9467-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9467-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation