AER Banner
  • Keyword
  • Volume/Page
  • DOI
  • Citation
  • Advanced
 
   
 
 
Astronomy Education Review / Volume 5 / Issue 2 / RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS

2006, AER, 5 (2), 53, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/AER2006019

Learning about Gravity II. Trajectories and Orbits: A Guide for Teachers and Curriculum Developers

Published 15 March 2007

Claudine Kavanagh

Tufts University

Cary Sneider

Museum of Science, Boston

Full Text: Read Online (HTML) | Download PDF | View Cart
This is the second and final part of a review of educational research on children’s ideas about gravity. The first part concerned students’ understanding of how and why things fall. This article picks up the trail of research studies that address students’ understanding of the more complex ideas of projectile motion and orbits and examines how the recommendations of national education standards fare in light of this body of research. The article begins with a brief historical sketch of how these ideas developed in human history and a summary of the relevant Benchmarks and Standards. The review then summarizes the results of studies of children’s and adults’ ideas about projectiles and orbits. When viewed together, these studies revealed a number of common misconceptions about gravity: that gravity needs air; that there is no gravity in space; that objects in orbit are weightless, so gravity does not affect them; that the force of gravity diminishes rapidly with increasing altitude; that force is needed to keep an object in orbit; that planets closer to the Sun or that spin faster have more gravity; and that gravitational forces between objects are not equal and opposite. These misconceptions are surprisingly widespread, even among university students and teachers. The second part of the review concerns teachers and teaching. Included are studies about teachers’ awareness of their students’ misconceptions, the effectiveness of typical physics instruction, teaching interventions with students, and professional development of teachers. These studies illustrate a number of effective methods for teaching students and teachers about projectiles and orbital motion. The article ends with conclusions drawn from the research and recommendations for curriculum development and teaching. So as to avoid redundancy, this article will assume that readers have read Part I of this review, which appears in the same issue of the Astronomy Education Review.

© 2007 Claudine Kavanagh. Copyright assigned to the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.

EDITORIALLY RELATED

  1. Learning about Gravity I. Free Fall: A Guide for Teachers and Curriculum Developers
    Claudine Kavanagh et al.
    AER 5, 21 (2006)AERSCZ000005000002000021000001

PUBLICATION DATA

ISSN

1539-1515 (online)

Publisher

$abstract.society.value is a Member of CrossRef Claudine Kavanagh. Copyright assigned to the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.

ARTICLE DATA

History
Received 20 October 2006
Published online 15 March 2007
Digital Object Identifier
http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/AER2006019

    References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1993, Benchmarks for Science Literacy, New York: Oxford University Press.
  2. Bar, V., & Zinn, B. 1998, “Similar Frameworks of Action-at-a-Distance: Early Scientists' and Pupils' Ideas,” Sci. Educ., 7(5), 471.
  3. Bar, V., Sneider, C., & Martimbeau, N. 1997, “What Research Says: Is There Gravity in Space?,” Sci. Child., 34(7), 38.
  4. Berg, T., & Brouwer, W. 1991, “Teacher Awareness of Student Alternate Conceptions About Rotational Motion and Gravity,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., 28(1), 3.
  5. Caramazza, A., McCloskey, M., & Green, B. 1981, “Naïve Beliefs in `Sophisticated' Subjects: Misconceptions about Trajectories of Objects,” Cognition, 9(2), 117. [MEDLINE]
  6. Champagne, A., Klopfer, L., & Anderson, J. 1980, “Factors Influencing the Learning of Classical Mechanics,” Am. J. Phys., 48(12), 1074AJPIAS000048000012001074000001.
  7. Chandler, D. 1991, “Weightlessness and Microgravity,” Phys. Teach., 29(5), 312PHTEAH000029000005000312000001.
  8. Clement, J. 1982, “Students' Preconceptions in Introductory Mechanics,” Am. J. Phys., 50(1), 66AJPIAS000050000001000066000001. [ISI]
  9. Cooke, N., & Breedin, S. 1994, “Constructing Naïve Theories of Motion on the Fly,” Mem. Cognit., 22(4), 474. [MEDLINE]
  10. Crombie, A. 1952, Augustine to Galileo: The History of Science A.D. 400–1650, London: Falcon Educational Books.
  11. Dharmadasa, I., & Silvern, S. 2000, “Children's Conceptualization of Force: Experimenting and Problem Solving,” Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15(1), 88.
  12. diSessa, A. 1993, “Toward an Epistemology of Physics,” Cogn. Instruct., 10(2&3), 105.
  13. Dostal, J. 2005, “Student Concepts of Gravity,” Master's thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, http://www.physics.iastate.edu/per/members/Dostal_Thesis.pdf.
  14. Eckstein, S., & Shemesh, M. 1993, “Development of Children's Ideas on Motion: Impetus, the Straight-Down Belief and the Law of Support,” Sch. Sci. Math., 93(6), 299.
  15. Finegold, M., & Gorsky, P. 1991, “Students' Concepts of Force as Applied to Related Physical Systems: A Search for Consistency,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., 13(1), 97.
  16. Fischbein, E., Stavy, R., & Ma-Naim, H. 1989, “The Psychological Structure of Naïve Impetus Conceptions,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., 11(1), 71.
  17. Galilei, G. 1638, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, S. Drake (Trans.), Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.
  18. Galili, I. 1993, “Weight and Gravity: Teachers' Ambiguity and Students Confusion about the Concepts,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., 15(2), 149.
  19. Galili, I. 1995, “Interpretation of Students' Understanding of the Concept of Weightlessness,” Res. Sci. Educ., 25(1), 51.
  20. Galili, I. 2001, “Weight versus Gravitational Force: Historical and Educational Perspectives,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., 23(10), 1073.
  21. Galili, I., & Kaplan, D. 1996, “Students' Operations with the Weight Concept,” Sci. Educ., 80(4), 457. [ISI]
  22. Grant, E. 1971, Physical Science in the Middle Ages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Gunstone, R., & Watts, M. 1985, “Force and Motion,” in Children's Ideas in Science, R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Editors), Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
  24. Gunstone, R., & White, R. 1980, “A Matter of Gravity,” Res. Sci. Educ., 10, 35.
  25. Gunstone, R., & White, R. 1981, “Understanding of Gravity,” Sci. Educ., 65(3), 291.
  26. Gürel, Z., & Acar, H. 2003, “Research into Students' Views about Basic Physics Principles in a Weightless Environment,” Astronomy Education Review, 2(1), 65AERSCZ000002000001000065000001.
  27. Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. 1985a, “The Initial Knowledge State of College Physics Students,” Am. J. Phys., 53(11), 1043AJPIAS000053000011001043000001. [ISI]
  28. Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. 1985b, “Common Sense Concepts about Motion,” Am. J. Phys., 53(11), 1056AJPIAS000053000011001056000001. [ISI]
  29. Hecht, H., & Bertamini, M. 2000, “Understanding Projectile Acceleration,” J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform., 26(2), 730. [MEDLINE]
  30. Hynd, C., Alvermann, D., & Qian, G. 1997, “Preservice Elementary School Teachers' Conceptual Change about Projectile Motion: Refutation Text, Demonstration, Affective Factors, and Relevance,” Sci. Educ., 81(1), 1.
  31. Kavanagh, C., & Sneider, C. 2007, “Learning about Gravity I. Free Fall: A Guide for Teachers and Curriculum Developers,” Astronomy Education Review, 5(2), 21AERSCZ000005000002000021000001.
  32. Kuhn, T. 1957, The Copernican Revolution, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  33. Liu, X., & MacIsaac, D. 2005, “An Investigation of Factors Affecting the Degree of Naïve Impetus Theory Application,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 14(1), 101.
  34. Lloyd, G. 1970, Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle, New York: Norton.
  35. Lloyd, G. 1973, Greek Science after Aristotle, New York: Norton.
  36. Maloney, D. 1988, “Novice Rules for Projectile Motion,” Sci. Educ., 72(4), 501.
  37. McCloskey, M. 1983, “Naïve Theories of Motion,” in Mental Models, D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Editors), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 299.
  38. McCloskey, M., Washburn, A., & Felch, L. 1983, “Intuitive Physics: The Straight-Down Belief and Its Origin,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 9(4), 636.
  39. McDermott, L., Shaffer, P., & The Physics Education Group at the University of Washington. 2002, Tutorials in Introductory Physics, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  40. Morrison, R. 1999, “Weight and Gravity: The Need for Consistent Definitions,” Phys. Teach., 37(1), 51PHTEAH000037000001000051000001.
  41. National Research Council. 1996, National Science Education Standards, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  42. Newton, I. 1687, Principa, Volume II: The System of the World, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966.
  43. Newton, I. 1728, The System of the World, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1995.
  44. Noce, G., Torosantucci, G., & Vincentini, M. 1988, “The Floating of Objects on the Moon: Prediction from a Theory or Experimental Facts?,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., 10(1), 61.
  45. Osborne, R. 1983, “Building on Children's Intuitive Ideas,” in R. Osborne & P. Freyberg (Editors), Learning in Science: The Implications of Children's Science, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 41.
  46. Palmer, D., & Flanagan, R. 1997, “Readiness to Change the Conception That `Motion-Implies-Force': A Comparison of 12-Year-Old and 16-Year-Old Students,” Sci. Educ., 81(3), 317.
  47. Piburn, M. 1988, “Misconceptions about Gravity Held by College Students,” conference proceedings, NARST Annual Meeting, Lake of the Ozarks, Missouri. April 10–13, 1988., (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 292616).
  48. Prescott, A. 2004, “Student Understanding and Learning About Projectile Motion in Senior High School,” PhD diss., School of Education, Australian Centre for Educational Studies, Macquarie University.
  49. Ranney, M. 1994, “Relative Consistency and Subjects' `Theories' in Domains Such as Naïve Physics: Common Research Difficulties Illustrated by Cooke and Breedin,” Mem. Cognit., 22(4), 503.
  50. Reynoso, E., Fierro, E., & Torres, G. 1993, “The Alternative Frameworks Presented by Mexican Students and Teachers Concerning the Free Fall of Bodies,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., 15(2), 127.
  51. Ruggiero, S., Cartelli, A., Dupre, F., & Vincentini-Missoni, M. 1985, “Weight, Gravity, and Air Pressure: Mental Representations by Italian Middle School Pupils,” Eur. J. Sci. Educ., 7(12), 181. [Inspec]
  52. Rutherford, F., & Ahlgren, A. 1989, Science for All Americans, New York: Oxford University Press.
  53. Sequira, M., & Leite, L. 1991, “Alternative Conceptions and History of Science in Physics Teacher Education,” Sci. Educ., 75(1), 45.
  54. Sharma, M., Millar, R., Smith, A., & Sefton, I. 2004, “Students' Understandings of Gravity in an Orbiting Space-Ship,” Res. Sci. Educ., 34(3), 267.
  55. Toulmin, S., & Goodfield, J. 1961, The Fabric of the Heavens, New York: Harper.
  56. Treagust, D., & Smith, C. 1986, “Secondary Students' Understanding of the Solar System: Implications for Curricular Revision,” annual conference, International Group for the Advancement of Physics Teaching, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  57. Treagust, D., & Smith, C. 1989, “Secondary Students' Understanding of Gravity and the Motion of Planets,” Sch. Sci. Math., 89(5), 380.
  58. Viennot, L. 1979, “Spontaneous Reasoning in Elementary Dynamics,” Eur. J. Sci. Educ., 1(2), 205. [Inspec]
  59. Watts, D. 1982, “Gravity-Don't Take It for Granted!,” Phys. Educ., 17(4), 116.
  60. Watts, D., & Zylbersztajn, A. 1981, “A Survey of Some Children's Ideas of Force,” Phys. Educ., 16(6), 360.
  61. Whitaker, R. 1983, “Aristotle Is Not Dead: Student Understanding of Trajectory Motion,” Am. J. Phys., 51(4), 352AJPIAS000051000004000352000001. [ISI]


Close
ADVERTISEMENT

Copyright © 2001 - American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved.

close