Brian Kay,

NSM 5013 Physics Modeling Instruct. June 2013

Instructor: Jim Stankevitz

Identifying, confronting, and resolving student preconceptions

In Maine Township High School District 207 at the bottom (as a footer) of almost
every official document, as on our letterhead for instance, is the phrase, Our goal is to
improve student learning. The goal of this paper is to show that student learning can be
improved by identifying, confronting, and resolving student preconceptions.
Preconceptions are the intuitions and metaphors that a student brings to a class regarding
the concepts to be presented during the course of the class. While avoiding the negative
connotations brought about by directly informing a student that his or her preconceptions
are misconceptions, to state the obvious,
preconceptions that are correct do not need
confronting with an aim to resolve, therefore it is
implied that we are referring to misconceptions.
The process of identifying student
misconceptions gives the teacher the action plan by
which the greatest gain in student learning can
occur. The generators of the Force Concept
Inventory test (FCI) have identified more than
enough misconceptions to fill a course in physics.
For example within the underlying
principles in kinematics there is the distinguishing
between the states of motion; Velocity discriminated
from position, and Acceleration discriminated from
velocity. The table at the right (taken from "Force
Concept Inventory" VOL. 30, MARCH 1992 THE
PHYSICS TEACHER page 144 By David Hestenes,
Malcolm Wells,and Gregg Swackhamer) lists the
misconceptions the authors have identified in their
effort to create an assessment that educators can use
to quantify growth in these areas of physics
learning. Since misconceptions are tenaciously held
onto by students, overcoming these misconceptions

A Taxonomy of Misconceptions Probed by the Inventory.

0. Kinematics

K1. position-velocity undiscriminated

K2. velocity-acceleration undiscriminated
K3. nonvectorial velocity composition
1. Impetus
I1. impetus supplied by "hit'
I2. loss/recovery of original impetus
I3. impetus dissipation
I4. gradual delayed impetus build-up
I5. circular impetus

2. Active Force

AF1. only active agents exert forces

AF2. motion implies active force
AF3. no motion implies no force
AF4. velocity proportional to applied force
AF5. acceleration implies increasing force
AF6. force causes acceleration to terminal velocity
AF7. active force wears out
3. Action/Reaction Pairs
ARl. greater mass implies greater force
AR2. most active agent produces greatest force
4. Concatenation of influences
CIl. largest force determines motion
CI2. force compromise determines motion
CI3. last force to act determines motion
5. Other Influences on Motion
CF. Centrifugal force
Ob. Obstacles exert no force
Resistance
R1. mass makes things stop
R2. motion when force overcomes resistance
R3. resistance opposes force/impetus
Gravity
G1. air pressure-assisted gravity
G2. gravity intrinsic to mass
G3. heavier objects fall faster
G4. gravity increases as objects fall
G5. gravity acts after impetus wears down

must be done in order to facilitate other learning related to these concepts. This is why
possessing an understanding of the misconceptions students have is so valuable. Some
wrong preconceptions appear to be easier to resolve, and others are very tenacious. For
example, the misconception that an object projected straight up at the top of its arc has no
acceleration has shown to be very stubborn. Confronting the misconceptions with an aim to
resolve (in the light of the resilience they have) is of prime importance. Until these
misconceptions can be overcome, the learning process will be stilted just as Sisyphus was
condemned to push a boulder up a hill in perpetuity. In a similar fashion, the instructor is
condemned to perpetually repeat the teaching process, because any gain that is realized is
quickly reversed because the students soon (when the forward force of the instruction
process is removed) return to their previously held intuitions.
The proposed mode by which these misconceptions can be efficiently resolved is the
pedagogy of scientific modeling. It is suggested by L.C. McDermot that resolving a
misconception requires moving from the base principles up to the sweeping
generalizations, and that it requires multiple instances of confronting the misconception. A
scientific modeling methodology allows for these multiple instances of confronting and
more importantly for the moving from base principles to general concepts. When students
encounter physical examples of contradictions at the very foundation of their previously
held intuitions or metaphors in the modeling process, great strides toward confronting
these intuitions are realized. These contradictions to their intuitions are necessary to
deconstruct any previously held conceptual framework that may be faulty. This effort is
necessary because how a student places new information into the framework of his or her
understanding will be influenced by the framework that is already in place and if this
framework is faulty or incomplete, anything new added will be skewed by this prior
framework. The learning thus received by the student will be different than what was
intended by the instructor and there will be as many different prior frameworks as there are
students. Upon this new foundational framework (built up by the students themselves to
insure a more permanent integration into their cognitive schema) the generalizations of the
learning desired can be fixed. Now, when students verbalize newly constructed (from their
individual point of view) concepts in the white boarding process, it serves to solidify a
correct understanding of general physics principles. The modeling process uses a preferred

movement from abstraction to generalization, and inductive thinking rather than deductive.
This inductive type of thinking pattern is seen in that the modeling methodology also
employs Socratic questioning in which students are forced to engage with the learning
process actively. Answers are not just given but thoughtful reflection of the experiences
encountered help to deconstruct misconceptions while constructing a solid conceptual
framework on which to build a broader understanding.
Since we have seen that, the process of identifying misconceptions informs the
instructor and gives the instructor an action plan by which to proceed to improve student
learning confronting misconceptions with corrected physics concepts and principles gives
the greatest gains in student learning. In addition, the most efficient way for the instructor
to facilitate a student as he builds for himself a conceptual framework upon which to hang
long-term learning comes from the modeling method of instruction. With its concrete
laboratory experiences, its multiple instances of confronting misconceptions through
homework and the verbalization of principles inherent in white-boarding, and its Socratic
questioning, scientific modeling is an elegant and efficient way to improve student learning.
Works Cited
Hake, Richard R. "Socratic Pedagogy in the Introductory Physics Laboratory." The Physics
Teacher 30.9 (1992): 546. Print.
Hestenes, David, Malcolm Wells, and Gregg Swackhamer. "Force Concept Inventory." The
Physics Teacher 30.3 (1992): 141. Print.
Hestenes, David. "MODELING METHODOLOGY FOR PHYSICS TEACHERS." Proceedings
of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education (College Park, August
1996). Print.
McDermott, Lillian C. "Guest Comment: How We Teach and How Students LearnA
Mismatch?" American Journal of Physics 61.4 (1993): 295. Print.
Mestre, Jose P. "Learning and Instruction in Pre-College Physical Science." Physics Today
44.9 (1991): 56. Print.

Resnick, Lauren B. Education and Learning to Think. Washington, D.C.: National Academy,
1987. Print.

Implementing Socratic questioning

In Maine Township High School District 207, as a footer, on almost every official document
(on our letterhead for instance) is the phrase, Our goal is to improve student learning. The
purpose of this paper is to show that student learning can be improved by implementing
Socratic questioning. Socratic questioning is a teaching strategy named after the
pedagogical techniques of the ancient Greek philosopher/teacher Socrates. Socratic
questioning is not only questioning to find an answer to a specific question. In addition, it is
also listening to a students responses and then re-questioning to draw a student to a deeper
fundamental understanding of the underlying concepts at hand.
Socratic questioning is a valuable tool in the resolving of misconceptions. In the
listening process, an astute instructor can identify a students pre-held misconceptions.
Then in the re-questioning process, the instructor can indirectly (or occasionally directly)
challenge a students misconceptions to deconstruct misconceptions and help lead the
student to build a correct framework of understanding upon which to build further learning
in the subject. The inductive reasoning on the students part which is involved in this
process, helps to form the students proper schema as they actively participate in resolving
their own (now formerly held) misconceptions.
To implement Socratic questioning in a Physics classroom, the instructor must first have a
firm grasp of the underlying fundamental concepts of Physics. This is necessary so that the
instructor can first recognize a possible misconception, and then formulate the types of requestioning necessary to create conflict in the students understanding, between the
misconception and an accepted underlying Physics concept. This conflict, if the student is
thoughtfully engaged in the learning process, is where the foundational learning occurs.
Socratic questioning does not as easily lend itself to the demonstration lecture
format. Although it can be used in such a setting the questioning would be most
advantageous to the student being directly addressed by the instructor, and very likely only
marginally so to other students. Students not being directly addressed are usually only
passively engaged in the learning process and the student directly addressed is frequently
the student actively engaged in the learning process. On the other hand, Socratic

questioning would be most effective when an instructor can engage a student in a one on
one dialogue. The scientific modeling format is much better suited for such a one on one
dialogue, because it offers more opportunity for this type of dialogue to occur. In addition
since in the laboratory setting the students have been actively engaged in the learning
process through peer discussion, this engagement will likely carry over when the Socratic
questioning by the instructor of one of a group members ensues. Group members who
have been struggling with a conflict with regarding their preconceived notions can hardly
help being swept up into a dialogue that might help to resolve their own mental conflict.
Resolving misconceptions though seems to require multiple varied instances of facing the
misconceptions in concrete practice, to then draw generalizations from the specific
examples encountered.
A description of modeling methodology
The Socratic questioning allows the instructor to lead the student to build the framework of
their own understanding that is on the one hand uniquely their own and on the other hand
straight square and level with a solid foundation. As an architectural analogy, we see many
different support structures for the myriad of buildings constructed however, they each,
although unique, have straight level floors and a solid foundation.
To summarize with an example of labs that have already been put into practice
(which are a picture of what labs look like in the modeling methodology). Richard Hake
uses what he calls Socratic Dialogue Inducing laboratories (SDI labs) and he describes their
advantages as follows
SDI labs emphasize hands-on experience with simple mechanics experiments and facilitate
interactive engagement of students with course material. They are designed to promote students'
mental construction of concepts through their (1) conceptual conflict, (2) extensive verbal, written,
pictorial, diagrammatic, graphical, and mathematical analysis of concrete Newtonian
experiments, (3) repeated exposure to experiments at increasing levels of sophistication, (4) peer
discussion, and (5) Socratic dialogue with instructors. . (see: Hake, Richard R. "Socratic
Pedagogy in the Introductory Physics Laboratory.")

The extensive verbal, written, pictorial, diagrammatic, graphical, and mathematical

analysis of concrete Newtonian experiments, helps (for the engaged and contemplative
student) to force the conceptual conflict. In addition, the peer discussion and Socratic
dialogue he cites help to resolve the conflict by promoting the forming of improved mental
conceptual frameworks to replace preconceived notions of how the physical world works.
This deep foundational type of student learning greatly facilitated by probing Socratic
questioning will form the bedrock upon which improved student learning can occur at all
levels.
Works Cited
Hake, Richard R. "Socratic Pedagogy in the Introductory Physics Laboratory." The Physics
Teacher 30.9 (1992): 546. Print.
Hestenes, David, Malcolm Wells, and Gregg Swackhamer. "Force Concept Inventory." The
Physics Teacher 30.3 (1992): 141. Print.
Hestenes, David. "MODELING METHODOLOGY FOR PHYSICS TEACHERS." Proceedings
of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education (College Park, August
1996). Print.
McDermott, Lillian C. "Guest Comment: How We Teach and How Students LearnA
Mismatch?" American Journal of Physics 61.4 (1993): 295. Print.
Mestre, Jose P. "Learning and Instruction in Pre-College Physical Science." Physics Today
44.9 (1991): 56. Print.
Resnick, Lauren B. Education and Learning to Think. Washington, D.C.: National Academy,
1987. Print.

Teaching the nature of science

In Maine Township High School District 207 as a footer of almost every official document,
(as on our letterhead for instance), is the phrase, Our goal is to improve student learning.
The goal of this paper is to show that student learning (in the sciences anyway) can be
improved by teaching the nature of science. What the Nature of science is will therefore
need to be thoughtfully considered, as well as why teaching this Nature can help meet
our goal to improve student learning.
The Nature of science can be put forth as the underlying general principles laws
and concepts of the physical world as understood today from the vast body of research and
scientific inquiry throughout history. The Physics first movement among science educators
recognizes that the subject of Physics is the study of these underlying principles and that is
why that movement is campaigning for physics to be taught first in the overarching science
curriculum. David Hestenes a noted physics education researcher describes physics in the
following way (and his conclusion on the primary objective of physics teaching will be
discussed later).
Physics can be characterized as a complex network of models interrelated by a system of
theoretical principles. Models are units of structured knowledge used to represent observable
patterns in physical phenomena. Accordingly, "physical understanding" is a complex set of
modeling skills, that is, cognitive skills for making and using models. The primary objective of
physics teaching should therefore be to develop student modeling skills for making sense of their
own physical experience and evaluating information reported by others. The Modeling Method of
instruction has been developed to meet this objective.
(See: MODELING METHODOLOGY FOR PHYSICS TEACHERS David Hestenes)

Meaningful science knowledge, he implies, is not just facts and tidbits but the framework of
the concepts upon which they hang, to allow the possessor of this knowledge to apply it to
new situations or events, and to help interpret these events. In an attempt to measure this
conceptual understanding David Hestenes, Malcolm Wells, and Gregg Swackhamer

developed an assessment tool used to evaluate it called the force concept inventory. These
three men suggest that there is a threshold score of about 60% on the force concept
inventory. Below his threshold score, they refer the physics thinking demonstrated on the
test to be pre-Newtonian thinking. This 60% level of understanding the basic level of
physics concepts, they contend, needs to be surpassed before problem solving (the
traditional litmus test of physics learning) can reliably occur. Though Newtonian thinking
is not the only factor in problem solving it is a factor without which problem solving cannot
proceed. To demonstrate this, they have collected data and compared scores of students in
both this force concept inventory, and another assessment tool: the mechanics baseline test.
The mechanics baseline is a problem solving type of physics test that employs basic physics
concepts. When the data for both test is compared it shows that students who are unable to
score well in the area of problem solving may score well on the concept inventory.
Contrarily, pre-Newtonian thinkers are not able to score above 60% on the mechanics
baseline problem solving test. It is interesting to note in traditional physics classes, problem
solving is considered the prerequisite proof of physics understanding.
In this light, it is understandable that David Hestenes would draw the conclusion (to
which we now return) that the primary objective of physics teaching should be to develop
student-modeling skills. These modeling skills conceptual, cognitive, scientific, and
mathematical in nature, form the basis upon which to analyze and solve problems.
Otherwise, problem solving reduces to an attempt to plug and chug numbers into
disjointed equations to arrive at answers that have no physical meaning. Once scientific
concepts are internalized, students are more able to generalize them and apply them to
make some meaning out of both the problem and its answer. The instructional
methodology proposed to achieve this internalization of concepts is called modeling.
Hestenes compared this methodology to the increasingly popular method known as
Cooperative Inquiry, which he describes as:
any method of instruction with the following characteristics: It is student-centered, activityoriented and often laboratory-based; students are actively engaged in investigating real
phenomena in collaboration with their peers and under guidance by the instructor.

While the instructional differences reside (again in his words):

in the systematic emphasis on models and modeling. The learning cycle was elaborated into a
modeling cycle. Though it remained unobtrusive, teacher guidance was strengthened by focusing

on a modeling agenda informed by the "misconceptions taxonomy." Consequently, student

investigations and presentations were more coherently structured. (See: MODELING
METHODOLOGY FOR PHYSICS TEACHERS David Hestenes)

In other words at the core of each activity, laboratory, and investigation, the underlying
scientific models are discovered and stressed. To the teachers role as facilitator was added
the responsibility of Socratic questioner to draw the students focus to the scientific models.
To assist the student in the cognitive construction of the desired scientific models the
instructor must be intimately acquainted with the misconceptions about the nature of
science that the students bring with them to the classroom setting.
If the what of our goal is teaching the nature of science to improve student
learning so that students can leave our classroom with a reservoir of meaningful knowledge
upon which to draw, to analyze, to predict and to evaluate information, then we must also
understand the mode by which the students fill that reservoir with said meaningful
knowledge. Base physics concepts and their attendant scientific models must first be
constructed by the student so that the sweeping generalizations needed to problem solve
will be present. This understanding of the underlying nature of science is a limiting factor
to the learning that can be achieved. So the why of our goal is to remove the stumbling
blocks or misconceptions which inhibit the construction of a deeper fundamental
understanding thus faciliating students to build upon that foundation to learn, problem
solve, and apply not only for a specific problem or for a particular class but to go forward
and become lifelong learners.
Works Cited
Hake, Richard R. "Socratic Pedagogy in the Introductory Physics Laboratory." The Physics
Teacher 30.9 (1992): 546. Print.
Hestenes, David, Malcolm Wells, and Gregg Swackhamer. "Force Concept Inventory." The
Physics Teacher 30.3 (1992): 141. Print.
Hestenes, David. "MODELING METHODOLOGY FOR PHYSICS TEACHERS."
Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education
(College Park, August 1996). Print.

McDermott, Lillian C. "Guest Comment: How We Teach and How Students LearnA
Mismatch?" American Journal of Physics 61.4 (1993): 295. Print.
Mestre, Jose P. "Learning and Instruction in Pre-College Physical Science." Physics Today
44.9 (1991): 56. Print.
Resnick, Lauren B. Education and Learning to Think. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy, 1987. Print.

The role of climate setting

In Maine Township High School District 207 as a footer of almost every official document,
(as on our letterhead for instance), is the phrase, Our goal is to improve student learning.
The goal of this paper is to show that student learning can be improved by fostering a
classroom climate that is an engaging one in which students can take ownership of not only
the process of their learning but more importantly the product also. By the product, what is
meant is the basic underlying physics concepts. Of course, this is done in a climate that is
also collegial, and cordial.
On a daily basis, both teacher and student (some deliberately some passively) are
undergoing the process of learning. A collegial setting in which all are learning should be
established and maintained by both the instructor and the students; a climate in which no
one concerned will be afraid to make mistakes. In the process of climate setting, the
instructor can let the students know that teachers also make mistakes sometimes, and that it
would be helpful (to others included in the discussion) if these mistakes were not
perpetuated by correcting them as they arise.
The climate of the above type classroom is probably on the radar of most educators.
In addition to this though, in order to significantly impact student learning, a climate of
active engagement in the material at hand must be established; a climate in which students
can confront their difficulties, be persistent in pursuing understanding, and encourage
others to do likewise. Both scientific educational researchers Lillian C. McDermott, and Jose
P. Mestre emphasize the necessity of this type of significant mental engagement on the part
of the learner.

Meaningful learning, which connotes the ability to interpret and use knowledge in situations
different from those in which it was initially acquired, requires that students be intellectually
active. Development of a functional understanding cannot take place unless students themselves
go through the reasoning involved in the development and application of concepts. [and also]
Those who learn successfully from lectures, textbooks and problem-solving do so because they
constantly question their own comprehension, confront their difficulties and persist in trying to
resolve them. Most students taking introductory physics do not bring this degree of intellectual
independence to their study of the subject. (see: McDermott, Lillian C. "Guest Comment: How
We Teach and How Students LearnA Mismatch?")
The construction of knowledge is a lifelong, effortful process. At any time, the corpus of
knowledge we have constructed makes sense to us and helps us interpret or predict events in our
experiential world. Meaningful learning, in the sense that we are able to interpret and apply
knowledge in novel contexts, requires significant mental engagement by the learner.(see: Mestre,
Jose P. "Learning and Instruction in Pre-College Physical Science.")

Setting a climate where the student takes on the hard work of engaging his or her intellect is
easier said than done. If this effort is centered in and around acquiring points or solving
problems to get a grade, once established this sort of climate is also difficult to maintain. It
can be reasonably argued that setting an engaging climate is important in both types of
classes: those that use traditional lecture pedagogy as well as those that employ a scientific
modeling methodology. Nevertheless, from the perspective of the student the modeling
methodology lends itself to an engaging atmosphere. This is true because of the frequent
dialoguing in which the students are taking part. In modeling, students must verbally
express their understanding in many situations such as:
To develop a lab procedure with their lab partners while investigating a physics model.
To justify a mathematical model presented during a laboratory post-mortem.
To explain how a homework problem was solved during a white-boarding presentation.
In modeling, guided debate among students is be encouraged as long as it is on task, cordial
and not disparaging. To specifically address students previously held misconceptions of
the physical world, investigation cycles of physics concepts are developed in modeling
methodology. This is done in this student-centered climate so that they face the conflict
(usually verbally) between what is evidenced in the discovery of a model during an activity
and what they naively believed before the activity. This crisis of conflict propels the student
into actively engaged learning, and allows the student to construct his or her own

framework of the physical world. Personally owning these conceptual structures is

necessary for students, or they will quickly discard them. The teacher is elevated (not
reduced) to the role of facilitator, and the role of Socratic questioner. As described by David
Hestenes in "MODELING METHODOLOGY FOR PHYSICS TEACHERS:
The teacher assumes the roles of activity facilitator, Socratic inquisitor, and arbiter (more the role
of a physics coach than a traditional teacher). To the students, the skilled teacher is transparent,
appearing primarily as a facilitator of student goals and agendas.

The instructor armed with a catalog of the most frequent student misconceptions can target
and utilize Socratic questions to force this same sort of crisis of conflict. These multiple
instances of challenging preconceived notions are imperative to dislodging those notions so
that they can be replaced with accepted models of physical phenomena. Because many of
the modeling activities do not allow the students to remain passive, these encourage
students to express their ideas, right or wrong and the students begin to enjoy the
excitement of learning and the defending of their ideas.
The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that a cordial and collegial class
atmosphere, combined with a climate of active cognitive engagement is necessary to
improve student learning. It is also clear that such an atmosphere is difficult to create and
maintain. Modeling methodology has the components to bring about this sort of climate in
students by having them confront their difficulties frequently, (because the activities are
designed to cause them to be actively engaged) and express their thoughts to challenge their
own preconceived notions. When this type of conflict occurs students are compelled to
take ownership of their own learning (both process and product), a cognitively engaging
climate is established, and the gains of true learning that can be retained are realized.
Works Cited
Hake, Richard R. "Socratic Pedagogy in the Introductory Physics Laboratory." The Physics
Teacher 30.9 (1992): 546. Print.
Hestenes, David, Malcolm Wells, and Gregg Swackhamer. "Force Concept Inventory." The
Physics Teacher 30.3 (1992): 141. Print.
Hestenes, David. "MODELING METHODOLOGY FOR PHYSICS TEACHERS." Proceedings
of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education (College Park, August
1996). Print.

McDermott, Lillian C. "Guest Comment: How We Teach and How Students LearnA
Mismatch?" American Journal of Physics 61.4 (1993): 295. Print.
Mestre, Jose P. "Learning and Instruction in Pre-College Physical Science." Physics Today
44.9 (1991): 56. Print.
Resnick, Lauren B. Education and Learning to Think. Washington, D.C.: National Academy,
1987. Print.