Children's reasoning about the interaction of forces.

In order to acquire an advanced understanding of movements caused by more than one physical force, children must learn to combine force vectors. Former studies suggest that children consider information on only one aspect (direction or amount) of both vectors. Two experiments tested this hypothesis. A total of 160 elementary school children and 31 adults judged the effect of two forces pulling at one object simultaneously. Participants had to predict the direction of the resulting force under different experimental conditions. In line with previous findings, most children took into account either the direction or the amount of both forces. Their preferred solution varied with the nature of the vector problem and the context of the task. Performance generally improved with age.

[1]  J. Piaget,et al.  The Child's Conception of the World , 1971 .

[2]  I. Sigel,et al.  HANDBOOK OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY , 2006 .

[3]  R. Siegler.  Three aspects of cognitive development , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  R. Case.  Intellectual development from birth to adulthood: A neo-Piagetian interpretation. , 1978 .

[5]  L. Viennot.  Spontaneous Reasoning in Elementary Dynamics. , 1979 .

[6]  Dorothea P. Simon,et al.  Expert and Novice Performance in Solving Physics Problems , 1980, Science.

[7]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  John J. Clement.  Analogy Generation in Scientific Problem Solving. , 1981 .

[9]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Naive beliefs in “sophisticated” subjects: misconceptions about trajectories of objects , 1981, Cognition.

[10]  N. Anderson,et al.  Comparison of two rule-assessment methodologies for studying cognitive development and knowledge structure. , 1982 .

[11]  Barbara Y. White,et al.  Sources of Difficulty in Understanding Newtonian Dynamics , 1983, Cogn. Sci..

[12]  John J. Kennedy,et al.  Analyzing qualitative data: Introductory log-linear analysis for behavioral research , 1983 .

[13]  Robert J. Whitaker,et al.  Aristotle is not dead: Student understanding of trajectory motion , 1983 .

[14]  F. Wilkening,et al.  Development of time quantification: integration and nonintegration of beginnings and endings in comparing durations. , 1984, Child development.

[15]  B. Adelson.  When Novices Surpass Experts: The Difficulty of a Task May Increase With Expertise , 1984 .

[16]  Barbara Y. White,et al.  Designing Computer Games to Help Physics Students Understand Newton's Laws of Motion , 1984 .

[17]  M. McCloskey,et al.  The development of beliefs about falling objects , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  Michael McCloskey,et al.  Development of Intuitive Theories of Motion: Curvilinear Motion in the Absence of External Forces. , 1986 .

[19]  J. Yates,et al.  Are conceptions of motion based on a naive theory or on prototypes? , 1988, Cognition.

[20]  David Klahr,et al.  Information Processing Approaches to Cognitive Development , 1988 .

[21]  D. Proffitt,et al.  Understanding natural dynamics. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  D R Proffitt,et al.  Understanding collision dynamics. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  H. Krist,et al.  Intuitive physics in action and judgment: the development of knowledge about projectile motion , 1993 .

[24]  M. Bickhard,et al.  The Mind's Staircase , 1993 .