Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Explaining Newton’s laws of motion: using student reasoning through representations to develop conceptual understanding

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The development of students’ reasoning and argumentation skills in school science is currently attracting strong research interest. In this paper we report on a study where we aimed to investigate student learning on the topic of motion when students, guided by their teacher, responded to a sequence of representational challenges in which their representational claims functioned as both process and product for reasoning about this topic. This qualitative case study entailed collection of data through classroom observation, transcripts of student/teacher interactions, and interviews with teacher and students. We found that students participated in various reasoning processes in generating and critiquing their own and other students’ representations on the topic of motion, contributing to positive engagement with the topic and conceptual understanding. We identified several pedagogical principles that support this learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S. (2008a). How do animations influence learning? In D. Robinson & G. Schraw (Eds.), Current perspectives on cognition, learning, and instruction: Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning (pp. 37–67). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing;

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S. (2008b). How should we evaluate multimedia learning environments? (pp. 37–67). In J.-F. Rouet, R. Lowe, & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Understanding multimedia comprehension (pp. 249–265). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. New York: Springer.

  • Ainsworth, S. (2008c). The educational value of multiple representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhlel (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 191–208). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Akkerman, S., Van den Bossche, P., Admiraal, W., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Simons, R., et al. (2007). Reconsidering group cognition: From conceptual confusion to a boundary area between cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives. Educational Research Review, 2, 39–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alozie, N., Moje, E., & Krajcik, J. (2010). An analysis of the supports and constraints for scientific discussion in high school project-based science. Science Education, 94(3), 395–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atwood, S., Turnbull, W., & Carpendale, J. I. M. (2010). The construction of knowledge in classroom talk. Journal of the learning sciences, 19(3), 358–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bao, L., Hogg, K., & Zollman, D. (2002). Model analysis of fine structures of student models: An example with Newton’s third law. American Journal of Physics, 70(7), 766–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Rethinking Transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N., Furtak, E., Timms, M., Nagashima, S., & Wilson, M. (2010). The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15(3), 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (2004). A short history of psychological theories of learning. Daedalus, 133(1), 2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campos, D. G. (2010). Peirce’s philosophy of mathematical education: Fostering reasoning abilities for mathematical inquiry. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29, 421–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, J., Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2008). Using representations for teaching and learning in science. Teaching Science, 54(1), 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Champangne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., & Anderson, J. H. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48(2), 1074–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Kayalvizhi, G. (2002). Posing problems for open investigations: What questions do pupils ask? Research in Science and Technological Education, 20, 269–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cliatt, M., & Shaw, J. (1985). Open questions, open answers. Science and Children, 23(3), 14–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalized cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creagh, C. (2008). Diagrams: Useful tools for investigating a student’s understanding of buoyancy. Teaching Science, 54(4), 48–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crute, T. D. (2000). Classroom Nomenclature Games—BINGO. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidowitz, B., Chittleborough, G., & Murray, E. (2010). Student-generated submicro diagrams: A useful tool for teaching and learning chemical equations and stoichiometry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 154–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, E., & Grady, J. (2010). Recognizing students’ scientific reasoning: A tool for categorizing complexity of reasoning during teaching by inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 31–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlen, K. (2009). Drawings as representations of children’s conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 31(1), 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M., & Forman, E. (2006). Redefining literacy learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galili, I., & Bar, V. (1992). Motion implies force: Where to expect vestiges of the misconception? International Journal of Science Education, 14(1), 63–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R., & Moffatt, B. (2003). Distributed cognition: Where the cognitive and the social merge. Social Studies of Science, 33, 301–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. (2005). Visualisation in science education. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, F. M., & Anderson, J. H. (1989). Student difficulties with graphical representations of negative values of velocity. The Physics Teacher, 27, 254–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, L., & Berntson, G. (2000). The art of asking questions. American Biology Teacher, 62, 473–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A., Hammer, D., & Redish, E. F. (2010). The case for dynamic models of learners’ ontologies in physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 285–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Schwackhammer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jewitt, C. (2007). A multimodal perspective on textuality and contexts. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 15, 275–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: The multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review, 53, 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre. Argumentation in Science Education (pp. 3–28). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Jira, D. K., & McCloskey, M. (1980). Students’ misconceptions about physical motion. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. T. (1983). Investigation of students’ understanding of speed, velocity and acceleration. Research in Science Education, 13, 95–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, P. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 143–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121–146). London: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (2003). Mathematics in the middle: Measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In M. Anderson, A. Sàenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger, & V. V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 215–234). Ottawa: Legas Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L., & van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 503–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Franscisco: Gossey-Bass. Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy learning. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullis, I., Martin, M., Ruddock, G., O’Sullivan, C., & Preuschoff, C. (2011). TIMSS 2011Assessment Frameworks. Boston College: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. (1931–58). Logic as Semiotic: The theory of signs. In Justus Buchler (Ed.) Philosophical writings of Peirce (1893–1910) (pp. 98–119), New York: Dover, 1955, reprint.

  • Peirce, C. S. (1931–58). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. 8 Volumes (Eds. Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss & Arthur W Burks, Vols 1–6), (Ed., Arthur W. Burks, vols 7–8). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Perkins, D. N. (1985). Reasoning as imagination. Interchange, 16, 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2010). Understanding how and why constructing representations supports learning in science: A theory of Representational Construction Affordances.Paper presented at the Australasian Science Education Research Association Conference. Newcastle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V., Tytler, R., Waldrip, B. G., & Hubber, P..(2009, Sept). Pedagogical principles associated with an explicit representational perspective on learning science. Paper presented at European Science Education Research Association conference, Paper presented at European Association for research on Learning and Instruction. Conference. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

  • Roberts, D. (1996). Epistemic authority for teacher knowledge: The potential role of teacher communities: A response to Robert Orton. Curriculum Inquiry, 26, 417–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future direction. Science Education, 98(3), 447–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saul, E. W. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Newark DE: International Reading Association and National Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D., & Bransford, J. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokoloff, D. R., & Thornton, R. K. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, L., Anderberg, E., Alvegard, C., & Johansson, L. (2009). The use of language in understanding matter. Instructional Science, 37, 305–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing science education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., & Prain, V. (2010). A framework for re-thinking learning in science from recent cognitive science perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 32(15), 2055–2078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., Prain, V., & Peterson, S. (2007). Representational issues in students learning about evaporation. Research in Science Education, 37(3), 313–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., Haslam, F., Hubber, P., & Prain, V. (2009). An explicit representational focus for teaching and learning about animals in the environment. Teaching Science, 55(4), 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students’ learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16, 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldrip, B., & Prain, V. (2006). Changing representations to learn primary science concepts. Teaching Science, 54(4), 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2010). Using multi-modal representations to improve learning in junior secondary science. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2008). How did we get from there to here? An evolutionary perspective on embodied cognition. In P. Calvo & T. Gomila (Eds.), Directions for an Embodied Cognitive Science: Towards an Integrated Approach. Amsterdam, Elsevier.

  • Yang, F., & Tsai, C. (2010). Reasoning about science-related uncertain issues and epistemological perspectives among children. Instructional Science, 38, 325–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45, 477–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Monash University, Churchill, VIC, Australia

    Bruce Waldrip & Peter Sellings

  2. Faculty of Education, La Trobe University, Bendigo, VIC, Australia

    Vaughan Prain

Authors
  1. Bruce Waldrip
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vaughan Prain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Sellings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce Waldrip.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Waldrip, B., Prain, V. & Sellings, P. Explaining Newton’s laws of motion: using student reasoning through representations to develop conceptual understanding. Instr Sci 41, 165–189 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9223-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9223-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation