ABSTRACT
The present study aimed at investigating children's and adolescents' understanding of constant and accelerated motions. The main objectives were (1) to investigate whether different task formats would affect the performance and (2) to track developmental changes in this domain. Five to 16 year olds (N = 157) predicted the distances of a moving vehicle on the basis of its movement durations on both a horizontal and an inclined plane. The task formats involved: (1) nonverbal action tasks, (2) number-based missing-value word problems, and (3) verbal judgments. The majority of participants of all age groups based their reactions in the first two task types on the assumption of a linear relationship between time and distance—which is correct for motions with constant speed but incorrect for accelerated motions. However, in the verbal judgments that tapped conceptual understanding, children from the age of 8 years onwards correctly assumed that an object rolling down an inclined plane would accelerate. The role of the task format in evoking erroneous beliefs and strategies is discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
REFERENCES
Anderson, N. H. (1983). Intuitive physics: Understanding and learning of physical relations. In T. J. Tighe, & B. E. Shepp (Eds.), Perception, cognition, and development: Interactional analyses (pp. 231–265). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Armstrong, J. O. (1995). Prior knowledge, text features, and idea maps. Technical Report No. 608. Urbana: Centre for the Study of Reading.
Baillargeon, R., & Hanko-Summers, S. (1990). Is the top object adequately supported by the bottom object? Young infants' understanding of support relations. Cognitive Development, 5, 29–53.
Bertamini, M., Spooner, A., & Hecht, H. (2005). The representation of naïve knowledge about physics. Studies in Multidisciplinarity, 2, 27–36.
Bullock, M., & Sodian, B. (2000). Scientific reasoning. In F. W. Weinert, & W. Schneider (Eds.), Reports on Wave 10. The Munich Longitudinal Study on the Genesis of Individual Competencies (LOGIC) (pp. 31–40): Munich: Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research.
Bullock, M., & Ziegler, A. (1999). Scientific reasoning: Developmental and individual differences. In F. E. Weinert, & W. Schneider (Eds.), Individual development from 3 to 12. Findings from the Munich Longitudinal Study (pp. 38–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cahyadi, M. V., & Butler, P. H. (2004). Undergraduate students' understanding of falling bodies in idealized and real-world situations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 569–583.
Caramazza, A., McCloskey, M., & Green, B. (1981). Naive beliefs in “sophisticated” subjects: Misconceptions about trajectories of objects. Cognition, 9, 117–123.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge: MIT.
Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., & Anderson, J. H. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48, 1074–1079.
Chi, M., & Roscoe, R. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon, & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change (pp. 3–27). London: Kluwer.
Clement, J., Brown, D. E., & Zietsman, A. (1989). Not all preconcepstions are misconceptions: Finding “anchoring” conceptions for grounding instruction on students' intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 554–566.
De Bock, D., Verschaffel, L., & Janssens, D. (1998). The predominance of the linear model in secondary school students' solutions of word problems involving length and area of similar plane figures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35, 65–83.
De Bock, D., Van Dooren, W., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2002). Improper use of linear reasoning: An in-depth study of the nature and the irresistibility of secondary school students' errors. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 50, 311–334.
De Bock, D., Verschaffel, L., Janssens, D., Van Dooren, W., & Claes, K. (2003). Do realistic contexts and graphical representations always have a beneficial impact on students' performance? Negative evidence from a study on modelling non-linear geometry problems. Learning and Instruction, 13, 441–463.
Dienes, Z., & Perner, J. (1999) A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22, 735–755.
diSessa, A. (1982). Unlearning Aristotelian physics: A study of knowledge-based learning. Cognitive Science, 6, 37–75.
diSessa, A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105–225.
Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography: Students' and teachers' conceptions and science education. Retrieved August 19, 2009, from http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/download_stcse.html.
Ebersbach, M., & Resing, W. C. M. (2007). Shedding new light on an old problem: The estimation of shadow sizes in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 97, 265–285.
Ebersbach, M., Van Dooren, W., Goudriaan, M., & Verschaffel, L. (2010). Discriminating non-linearity from linearity: Its cognitive foundations in 5-year-olds. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12, 4–19.
Ebersbach, M., Van Dooren, W., Van den Noortgate, W., & Resing, W. C. M. (2008). Understanding linear and exponential growth: Searching for the roots in 6- to 9-year-olds. Cognitive Development, 23, 237–257.
Ebersbach, M., & Wilkening, F. (2007). Children's intuitive mathematics: The development of knowledge about non-linear growth. Child Development, 78, 296–308.
Elby, A. (2001). Helping physics students learn how to learn. American Journal of Physics, 69, S54–S64.
Ellis, A. B., & Grinstead, P. (2008). Hidden lessons: How a focus on slope-like properties of quadratic functions encouraged unexpected generalizations. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27, 277–296.
Frank, B. W., Kanim, S. E., & Gomez, L. S. (2008). Accounting for variability in student responses to motion questions. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 4, 020102-1–020102-11. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.020102.
Freyd, J. J., & Jones, K. T. (1994). Representational momentum for a spiral path. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 968–976.
Friedman, W. J. (2002). Arrows of time in infancy: The representation of temporal-causal invariances. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 252–296.
Gelman R., & Meck E. (1983). Preschooler's counting: Principles before skills. Cognition, 13, 343–359.
Gilden, D. L., & Profitt, D. R. (1989). Understanding collision dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 372–383.
Gillard, E., Van Dooren, W., Schaeken, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Proportional reasoning as a heuristic-based process: Time constraint and dual task considerations. Experimental Psychology, 56, 92–99.
Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985a). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1056–1065.
Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985b). The initial knowledge state of college students. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1043–1055.
Hammer, D. (1996). More than misconception: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research. American Journal of Physics, 64, 1316–1325.
Hays, W. L. (1994). Statistics (5th ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.
Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physic, 60, 732–748.
Kaiser, M. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Anderson, K. (1985a). Judgments of natural and anomalous trajectories in the presence and absence of motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 795–803.
Kaiser, M. K., Proffitt, D. R., & McCloskey, M. (1985b). The development of beliefs about falling objects. Perception and Psychophysics, 38, 533–539.
Kim, I. K., & Spelke, E. S. (1992). Infants' sensitivity to effects of gravity on visible object motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 385–393.
Kozhevnikov, M., & Hegarty, M. (2001).Impetus beliefs as default heuristics: Dissociation between explicit and implicit knowledge about motion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 439–453.
Krist, H., Fieberg, E. L., & Wilkening, F. (1993). Intuitive physics in action and judgement: The development of knowledge about projectile motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 952–966.
Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1, 113–129.
Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357–380.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Naïve theories of motion. In D. Gentner, & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-324). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
McCloskey, M., & Kaiser, M. K. (1984). Children's intuitive physics. The Sciences, 24, 40–45.
Mestre, J. P. (1991). Learning and instruction in pre-college physical science. Physics Today, 44, 56–62.
Oberle, C. D., McBeath, M. K., Madigan, S. C., & Sugar, T. G. (2005). The Galileo bias: A naive conceptual belief that influences people's perceptions and performance in a ball-dropping task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 643–653.
Pine, K. J., & Messer, D. J. (1999). What children do and what children know: Looking beyond success using Karmiloff–Smith's RR framework. New Ideas in Psychology, 17, 17–30.
Proffitt, D. R., & Gilden, D. L. (1989). Understanding natural dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 384–393.
Proffitt, D. R., Kaiser, M. K., & Whelan, S. M. (1990). Understanding wheel dynamics. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 342–373.
Reed, S. K. (1984). Estimating answers to algebra word problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 10, 778–790.
Reed, S. K., & Saavedra, N. A. (1986). A comparison of computation, discovery, and graph methods for improving students' conception of average speed. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 31–62.
Reif, F., & Allen, S. (1992). Cognition for interpreting scientific concepts: A study of acceleration. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 1–44.
Rohrer, D. (2002). Misconceptions about incline speed for non-linear slopes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 963–967.
Rohrer, D. (2003). The natural appearance of unnatural incline speed. Memory & Cognition, 31, 816–826.
Scherr, R. E. (2007). Modeling student thinking: An example from special relativity. American Journal of Physics, 75, 272–280.
Shanon, B. (1976). Aristotelianism, Newtonianism and the physics of the layman. Perception, 5, 241–243.
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.
Sodian, B., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1991). Young children's differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 62, 753–766.
Suarez, A. (1977). Die quadratische Funktion [The quadratic function]. In A. Suarez (Ed.), Formales Denken und Funktionsbegriff bei Jugendlichen (pp. 93–121). Bern: Huber.
Trowbridge, D. E., & McDermott, L. C. (1980). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 48, 1020–1028.
Trowbridge, D. E., & McDermott, L. C. (1981). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 49, 242–253.
Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Depaepe, F., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2003). The illusion of linearity: Expanding the evidence towards probabilistic reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53, 113–138.
Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Hessels, A., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2004). Remedying secondary school students' illusion of linearity. A teaching experiment striving for conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 14, 485–501.
Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Hessels, A., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2005). Not everything is proportional: Effects of age and problem type on propensities for overgeneralization. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 57–86.
Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2007). Students' over-reliance on linear methods: A scholastic effect? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 307–321.
Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2008). The linear imperative: An inventory and conceptual analysis of students' over-use of linearity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 311–342.
Vondracek, M. (2003). Enhancing student learning by tapping into physics they already know. Physics Teacher, 41, 109–112.
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modelling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 51–67.
Vosniadou, S., & Verschaffel, L. (2004). Extending the conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 14, 445–451.
Weil-Barais, A., & Vergnaud, G. (1990). Students' conceptions in physics and mathematics: Biases and helps. In J.-P. Caverni, J.-M. Fabre, & M. Gonzales (Eds.), Cognitive biases (pp. 69–84). North-Holland: Elsevier.
Weinert, F. E., Bullock, M., & Schneider, W. (1999). Universal, differential, and individual aspects of child development from 3 to 12: What can we learn from a comprehensive longitudinal study? In F. E.Weinert & W. Schneider (Eds.), Individual development from 3 to 12. Findings from the Munich Longitudinal Study (pp. 324–350). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, B. (1983). Sources of difficulty in understanding Newtonian dynamics. Cognitive Science, 7, 41–65.
Wilkening, F. (1981). Integrating velocity, time, and distance information: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 231–247.
Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172–223.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ebersbach, M., Van Dooren, W. & Verschaffel, L. KNOWLEDGE ON ACCELERATED MOTION AS MEASURED BY IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT TASKS IN 5 TO 16 YEAR OLDS. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 9, 25–46 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9208-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9208-5