A survey of students' understanding of colliding bodies

How Student Teachers Understand Distance Force Interactions in Different Contexts

“…In the same way, Savinainen & Scott (2002), underlineafter a pilot application of a new teaching approach where the notion of interaction is central to understanding the force concept-that "many students had difficulties in generalizing from NTL to cover both the accelerated and uniform velocity cases, with many students believing that NTL does not hold to a force situation". Likewise, in previous research (Montanero et al 1995) where NTL was studied in relation to two colliding bodies, results show that in this case, students follow a different way of thinking, where there is "a perfect identification of the concept of force with the momentum". As a discussion issue, they stressed that the principle of action and reaction is very difficult to comprehend in both cases, namely, when applied to bodies at rest and in contact as well as to colliding bodies.…”

“…On the other hand, the 'motion group' focuses, as mentioned earlier, on bodies in motion, for example, a collision between a small truck and a car or between two identical marbles or between a missile and a bomb, a student on rollers pushing another one and a small car pushing a large one with constant velocity or acceleration (Watts & Zylberszajn, 1981;Brown, 1989;Gamble, 1989;Kruger, Summers & Palacio 1990a, 1990bSummers, 1992;Thijs, 1992;Montanero, Perez & Suero, 1995;Trumper, 1996;Heywood & Parker, 2001;Bao, Hogg & Zollman, 2002;Savinainen & Scott, 2002;Savinainen, Scott & Viiri, 2005).…”

Students’ Understanding on Newton’s Third Law in Identifying the Reaction Force in Gravity Interactions

“…The instrument is comprised of eight different contexts with each for one question, including a table with a book on it, a ceiling lamp suspended from a string, a raindrop falling in the air, a box on a slope, a floating wood pressed by hand, two collisions between cars (one between a small car and a big one, the other between two identical cars), the magnetic attraction between two magnets, and a person rowing a boat with oars. These contexts are similar to, but not all identical with, those in previous researches (Terry et al, 1985;Hestenes, Wells, & Swackhamer, 1992;Trumper, 1996;Palmer, 2001;Bryce and MacMillan, 2005;Jiménez-Valladares & Perales-Palcios, 2001;Kariotoglou et al, 2009;Heywood & Parker, 2001;Savinainen, Scott, & Viiri, 2005;Bao, Hogg, & Zollman, 2002;Montanero, Perez, & Suero, 1995;Trumper, 1996), for the sake of a good validity of the questions. All contexts in the present instrument have been classified as two categories in table 2.…”

“…On the other hand, the dynamic group focuses on students' understanding about the cases in which bodies are moving. For example, cases in contact include the collision situation between a car and a small truck, or between a bomb and a missile, or between two identical marbles, as well as the pushing situation in which a small car pushes a large one or a student on rollers pushes another student (Watts & Zylberszajn, 1981;Brown, 1989;Gamble, 1989;Kruger, Summers & Palacio, 1990a, 1990bSummers, 1992;Thijs, 1992;Montanero, Perez & Suero, 1995;Trumper, 1996;Heywood & Parker, 2001;Bao, Hogg, & Zollman, 2002;Savinainen, & Scott, 2002;Savinainen, Scott, & Viiri, 2005). While, there are some studies referring to interaction objects at distant, e.g.…”

Using History to Teach Mechanics

“…32 See Naylor (1974aNaylor ( , b, 1976Naylor ( , 1977Naylor ( , 1980Naylor ( , 1983. 33 See, for example, Brown (1989), Clement (1982), Doménech et al (1993), Galili and Bar (1992), Gunstone (1984), Halloun and Hestenes (1985), Ioannides and Vosniadou (2002), Lythcott (1985), McCloskey (1983), Montanero et al (1995), Steinberg et al (1990), Twigger et al (1994), Viennot (1979), andWhitaker (1983).…”