``Force,'' ontology, and language

We introduce a linguistic framework through which one can interpret systematically students’ understanding of and reasoning about force and motion. Some researchers have suggested that students have robust misconceptions or alternative frameworks grounded in everyday experience. Others have pointed out the inconsistency of students’ responses and presented a phenomenological explanation for what is observed, namely, knowledge in pieces. We wish to present a view that builds on and unifies aspects of this prior research. Our argument is that many students’ difficulties with force and motion are primarily due to a combination of linguistic and ontological difficulties. It is possible that students are primarily engaged in trying to define and categorize the meaning of the term “force” as spoken about by physicists. We found that this process of negotiation of meaning is remarkably similar to that engaged in by physicists in history. In this paper we will describe a study of the historical record that reveals an analogous process of meaning negotiation, spanning multiple centuries. Using methods from cognitive linguistics and systemic functional grammar, we will present an analysis of the force and motion literature, focusing on prior studies with interview data. We will then discuss the implications of our findings for physics instruction.

[1]  A. diSessa.  Toward an Epistemology of Physics , 1993 .

[2]  L. E. Klopfer,et al.  Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics , 1980 .

[3]  David E. Brown.  Students' concept of force: the importance of understanding Newton's third law , 1989 .

[4]  J. McClain.  The grammar of force , 1990 .

[5]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Spatial Visualization in Physics Problem Solving , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[6]  Laurinda Leite,et al.  Alternative conceptions and history of science in physics teacher education , 1991 .

[7]  D. Styer.  The word “force” , 2001 .

[8]  Eugenia Etkina,et al.  The Role of Models in Physics Instruction , 2006 .

[9]  Ibrahim A. Halloun,et al.  The initial knowledge state of college physics students , 1985 .

[10]  M. Chi,et al.  From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts , 1994 .

[11]  Joan Bliss,et al.  Force and motion from the beginning , 1994 .

[12]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[13]  D. M. Watts,et al.  A survey of some children's ideas about force , 1981 .

[14]  Richard N. Steinberg,et al.  Performance on multiple-choice diagnostics and complementary exam problems , 1997 .

[15]  Clive Sutton,et al.  Figuring Out a Scientific Understanding. , 1993 .

[16]  P. Hewson,et al.  Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change , 1982 .

[17]  L. McDermott,et al.  Resource Letter: PER-1: Physics Education Research , 1999 .

[18]  M. Finegold,et al.  Students' Concepts of Force as Applied to Related Physical Systems: A Search for Consistency. , 1991 .

[19]  Language as a confounding variable in the diagnosis of misconceptions , 2000 .

[20]  James D. Slotta,et al.  The Ontological Coherence of Intuitive Physics , 1993 .

[21]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  Concepts, Misconceptions and Alternative Conceptions: Changing Perspectives in Science Education , 1983 .

[22]  Ronald K. Thornton,et al.  Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula , 1998 .

[23]  D. Grayson.  Concept substitution: An instructional strategy for promoting conceptual change , 1994 .

[24]  D. Hestenes,et al.  Force concept inventory , 1992 .

[25]  I. Galili,et al.  Motion implies force: where to expect vestiges of the misconception? , 1992 .

[26]  Edward H. Madden,et al.  Concepts of Force. , 1959 .

[27]  Eugenia Etkina,et al.  Using Conceptual Metaphor and Functional Grammar to Explore How Language Used in Physics Affects Student Learning. , 2007, 0704.1319.

[28]  J. Clement.  Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics , 1982 .

[29]  L. McDermott.  Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics , 1984 .

[30]  H. Thomas Williams,et al.  Semantics in teaching introductory physics , 1999 .

[32]  Ali Eryilmaz,et al.  Effects of Conceptual Assignments and Conceptual Change Discussions on Students' Misconceptions and Achievement Regarding Force and Motion , 2002 .

[33]  John J. Clement,et al.  Genius is not immune to persistent misconceptions: conceptual difficulties impeding Isaac Newton and contemporary physics students , 1990 .

[34]  A. diSessa,et al.  What changes in conceptual change , 1998 .

[35]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: naive beliefs about the motion of objects. , 1980, Science.

[36]  Ibrahim A. Halloun,et al.  Common sense concepts about motion , 1985 .

[37]  L. Leboutet-Barrell.  Concepts of mechanics among young people , 1976 .

[38]  P. Mildenhall,et al.  Instability in students' use of intuitive and Newtonian models to predict motion: the critical effect of the parameters involved , 2001 .

[39]  Jerold S. Touger,et al.  When words fail us , 1991 .

[40]  Anna Sfard,et al.  When the Rules of Discourse Change, but Nobody Tells You: Making Sense of Mathematics Learning From a Commognitive Standpoint , 2007 .

[41]  Andrew Elby,et al.  What students' learning of representations tells us about constructivism , 2000 .

[42]  David Palmer,et al.  The effect of context on students’ reasoning about forces , 1997 .

[43]  J. Dauben.  Georg Cantor and the Origins of Transfinite Set Theory , 1983 .

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

[45]  Douglas Huffman,et al.  What does the force concept inventory actually measure , 1995 .

[46]  Jennifer B. Esterly,et al.  Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force , 2004 .

[47]  Gerard D. Thijs,et al.  Making productive use of students' initial conceptions in developing the concept of force , 1998 .

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

[49]  Mark L. Johnson.  The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning , 1987 .

[50]  N. S. Rebello,et al.  The Vocabulary of Introductory Physics and Its Implications for Learning Physics , 2003 .

[51]  B. Shanon.  Aristotelianism, Newtonianism and the Physics of the Layman , 1976, Perception.

[52]  Michael Halliday,et al.  An Introduction to Functional Grammar , 1985 .

[53]  Arnold B. Arons,et al.  Teaching Introductory Physics , 1996 .