Helping students develop an understanding of Archimedes’ principle. I.

Research on
student understanding
Michael E. Loverude, Christian H. Kautz, and Paula R. L. Heron

Citation: American Journal of Physics 71, 1178 (2003); doi: 10.1119/1.1607335

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1607335
View Table of Contents: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/71/11?ver=pdfcov
Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers

Articles you may be interested in

A Spring, Hooke's Law, and Archimedes' Principle
Phys. Teach. 43, 516 (2005); 10.1119/1.2120379

A beam chopping experiment to help students develop research skills

Am. J. Phys. 72, 695 (2004); 10.1119/1.1632490

Helping students develop an understanding of Archimedes’ principle. II. Development of research-based

instructional materials
Am. J. Phys. 71, 1188 (2003); 10.1119/1.1607337

Reconsidering Archimedes' Principle

Phys. Teach. 41, 340 (2003); 10.1119/1.1607804

Archimedes’ principle without the king’s crown

Phys. Teach. 36, 557 (1998); 10.1119/1.880136

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
158.49.113.199 On: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:04:42
 Helping students develop an understanding of Archimedes’ principle.
I. Research on student understanding
Michael E. Loverude,a) Christian H. Kautz,b) and Paula R. L. Heron
Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-1560
共Received 4 February 2002; accepted 18 July 2003兲
This paper is the first of two that describe how research on student understanding of Archimedes’
principle is being used to guide the development of instructional materials on this topic. Our results
indicate that standard instruction on hydrostatics leaves many science and engineering majors
unable to predict and explain the sinking and floating behavior of simple objects. A number of
serious and persistent difficulties with the concepts and principles used to analyze such behavior are
identified. Although some of these difficulties are specific to the concept of the buoyant force, many
others seem to reflect lingering confusion about concepts that are widely assumed to be understood
by students before the study of hydrostatics begins. © 2003 American Association of Physics Teachers.
关DOI: 10.1119/1.1607335兴

I. INTRODUCTION has developed to supplement instruction in a standard intro-

The Physics Education Group at the University of Wash-
ington 共UW兲 is engaged in an ongoing investigation of stu-
dent understanding of hydrostatic pressure and buoyancy.1
Prior to the current phase of the investigation, we had devel-
oped instructional materials on buoyancy for Physics by In-
quiry, a set of laboratory-based modules primarily intended
for use in special physics courses for prospective and prac-
ticing K–12 teachers.2,3
This article describes the extension of our investigation to
science and engineering majors in typical university courses.
Students who have studied hydrostatics in introductory phys-
ics are expected to be able to account for sinking and floating
in terms of net force and Newton’s laws. In a typical course,
the instructor and textbook explain that the buoyant force is
due to the variation of pressure between the top and bottom
surfaces of an object. The students are explicitly taught that
the buoyant force on an object is equal to the weight of the
fluid displaced and the equation B⫽ ␳ gV disp is derived. How-
ever, we found that many students cannot apply Archimedes’
principle even in very simple situations.
Lucid explanations by the instructor and practice in solv-
ing standard homework problems are apparently insufficient
to help students overcome the trouble that they have with the
underlying concepts and lines of reasoning. Under such cir-
cumstances, it is imperative to try to identify precisely the
basic difficulties so that they can be systematically ad-
dressed. This article provides the information about student
thinking that we found necessary in our efforts to design
instruction that would more effectively accomplish this ob-
jective. The companion article describes the development
and assessment of instructional materials.4
II. CONTEXT FOR INVESTIGATION
Our investigation involved more than 2000 students. The
largest group consisted of UW students in the second quarter
of introductory algebra-based physics, which covers fluids,
thermal physics, and electricity and magnetism. Mechanics is
a prerequisite. Enrollment in individual lecture sections of
this course ranges from about 50 to more than 200. The
course has no small sections, and, in particular, does not
involve Tutorials in Introductory Physics, which our group
ductory course.5,6 Approximately half the students take an
optional associated laboratory course. Also included were
UW students taking a second-year course that covers hydro-
statics and thermal physics. This course has an enrollment
that ranges from fewer than 20 to more than 60 students, of
whom typically about 30% are physics majors. There is no
laboratory component. A year of introductory calculus-based
physics 共which does not include hydrostatics兲 is a prerequi-
site. In both the algebra-based and second-year courses, the
amount of time devoted to hydrostatics ranged from a few
days to about two weeks, depending on the instructor. This
investigation also involved courses at other universities, in-
cluding algebra-based physics at the University of Maryland,
College Park, and calculus-based physics at Purdue Univer-
sity.
III. INSIGHTS FROM INITIAL INVESTIGATION
We began our study with the assumption that university
science majors would be able to give simple physical expla-
nations to account for everyday phenomena involving sink-
ing and floating. Therefore, we based our initial efforts to
probe their understanding of hydrostatics on a more chal-
lenging phenomenon: the behavior of a Cartesian diver.7
We conducted individual demonstration interviews with
seven volunteers from the second-year course after all in-
struction on hydrostatics was completed. The students had
final course grades at or above the mean. The interviews
were audiotaped and videotaped for later analysis. The stu-
dents were asked to predict what would happen to a barely
floating diver when the sealed plastic bottle in which it was
contained was compressed.8 Although all the students recog-
nized that the pressure in the container would increase, all
but two predicted that the diver would rise. None of the
students could account for the subsequent observation that
the diver sank. After seeing the diver sink, some students
drew free-body diagrams that showed both an upward
‘‘buoyant force’’ and an additional, downward ‘‘pressure
force’’ 共sometimes described as the ‘‘weight of the water
above the diver’’兲.9 Several students predicted that the sink-
ing diver would come to rest before reaching the bottom.
They seemed to assume that the phenomenon of objects
floating underwater is relatively common. Although this be-

1178 Am. J. Phys. 71 共11兲, November 2003 http://aapt.org/ajp © 2003 American Association of Physics Teachers 1178
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
158.49.113.199 On: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:04:42

havior is possible, we suspected that the students did not
have a firm grasp of the conditions under which this might
occur.
IV. STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF ARCHIMEDES’
PRINCIPLE
The degree of confusion in the students’ responses during
the Cartesian diver interviews was such that we were unable
to identify the nature of their difficulties. To probe their un-
derstanding further, we developed a series of written prob-
lems that involved much simpler situations. The problems
were administered as either nongraded quizzes 共of about 10
minutes兲 or examination questions.10 In such settings it is
difficult to estimate the effect of, much less control, many of
the variables. However, the data provide a measure of the
prevalence of certain difficulties and can provide guidance
for setting priorities in instruction.11
A. Predicting sinking and floating
The problem describes five blocks of identical size and
shape but varying mass, with block 1 being the lightest and
block 5 the heaviest 共see Fig. 1兲. Each block is held approxi-
mately half-way down in the water in an aquarium and re-
leased. The final positions of blocks 2 and 5 are shown in an
accompanying figure and described in the text 共block 2
barely floats and block 5 rests on the bottom of the tank兲.12
Students were asked to sketch the final positions of the other
three blocks and to explain their reasoning.
A correct answer to this problem requires an inference
from the given information that block 2 barely floats, as il-
lustrated by the student quote: ‘‘Since m 1 ⬍m 2 , and m 2 has
a density just about equal to that of H2 O, m 1 must have a
lighter density and thus will float more. Block 3’s density
will be more than that of H2 O and m 2 and so it will sink.’’
The problem does not specify in detail how the masses of the
blocks vary. Therefore, answers consistent with the assump-
1179 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 71, No. 11, November 2003
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
158.49.113.199 On: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:04:42
Fig. 1. The five-block problem.
tion that the density of block 3, while greater than that of
block 2, is less than or exactly equal to that of water were
also considered correct. For example, the response: ‘‘If 2
barely floats then 3 probably sinks, but it could be exactly
neutrally buoyant and stay where it’s released’’ was consid-
ered correct 共see Fig. 2兲.
This problem has been given in two sections of the intro-
ductory course in which instruction on buoyancy had not yet
begun. About 25% of the students answered correctly (N
⫽218). In two classes in which standard lecture instruction
had been completed, about 10% answered correctly (N
⫽151) 13 共given the expected size of the random fluctuations
and the large number of variables involved, we do not assign
significance to the apparent difference in results obtained be-
fore and after instruction兲.14 About 50% of the students in the
UW second-year course gave a correct answer (N⫽101) af-
ter standard instruction. In the introductory course at Purdue,
the success rate after standard instruction was about 40%
(N⫽765).
In all the classes, the most common incorrect response
showed blocks 3 and 4 at intermediate depths in the water
共see Fig. 3兲. We refer to this as the ‘‘descending line’’ re-
sponse. This answer could only be considered correct if it
was assumed that the density of the water varies so that
objects of different density might each match the average
density of the surrounding water at different depths. How-
ever, water had been treated as incompressible in the courses
in which the students were enrolled.15 Moreover, although
some students explicitly related the final positions of the
blocks to their relative densities, none referred to the density
of the surrounding liquid. In all but the initial version of this
problem, we were careful to remind students to treat water as
incompressible. This warning has had no apparent effect on
the outcome.
Explanations in which forces are mentioned are somewhat
more prevalent after formal instruction than before. How-
Fig. 2. Possible correct answers to the
five-block problem.
Loverude, Kautz, and Heron 1179

Fig. 3. An example of the incorrect ‘‘descending line’’ response to the
five-block problem.
ever, even after instruction, only about 10% to 20% of the
UW introductory students referred to forces, while about
20% to 30% referred to the densities of the blocks 共the frag-
mentary, incoherent nature of many of the student responses
permits only a rough categorization兲. The majority of stu-
dents simply referred to the mass or weight of the blocks.
For example, one student wrote, ‘‘Block 4 is heavier than 3
but lighter than 5 so it descends somewhere halfway between
3 and 5.’’ No obvious correlation exists between the success
rate and the type of explanation offered.
The five-block task also was used as the basis for indi-
vidual interviews with 12 students from the second-year
course after all relevant instruction had been completed. The
students were given five small cubes of equal volume but
different material and asked to sort them by weight. The
interviewer then placed blocks 2 共nylon兲 and 5 共iron兲 in a
beaker of water and asked each student to predict the final
positions of the other blocks 共wood, aluminum, and lucite兲
and to explain their reasoning. About half of the students
gave the descending line response. These students seemed to
be strongly committed to their prediction. Despite often
lengthy discussions, all of the students who initially gave this
response maintained that blocks 3 and 4 would ‘‘float’’ above
1180 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 71, No. 11, November 2003
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
158.49.113.199 On: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:04:42
the bottom. None mentioned a density gradient or compress-
ibility. When shown the outcome of the experiment, they
expressed surprise and were unable to resolve the inconsis-
tency between their prediction and observation.
B. Relating the buoyant force on submerged objects to
their volume
In their responses to the five-block problem, some students
explicitly linked the buoyant force on a block to its depth or
mass. For example, one wrote: ‘‘Assuming that the masses
increase in equal intervals, it seems likely that the buoyant
forces would also increase linearly.’’ On a version in which
we asked students to draw free-body diagrams for blocks 2
and 5 just after being released, about 60% of those who drew
reasonable diagrams 共that is, with no additional or missing
forces兲 clearly indicated that the buoyant forces on the two
blocks would be different (N⬃200). 16 Most suggested that
the buoyant force on the lighter block would be greater.
The responses to the five-block problem led us to design a
series of questions to examine the ability of students to relate
the buoyant force on a submerged object to its volume. One
version is shown in Fig. 4. Three blocks of equal volume are
suspended from strings and completely submerged in a tank
of water 共the text states that all the blocks have been ob-
served to sink兲. In other versions, blocks that have been ob-
served to float are attached to strings connected to the bottom
of the tank. In each case, a pair of blocks of different mass is
at the same depth and/or a pair of blocks of the same mass
are at different depths. In some versions, a block of the same
volume as one of the others floats freely 共see Fig. 5兲. Stu-
dents are asked to rank the magnitudes of the buoyant forces
共some versions ask for a pairwise comparison兲. To answer
correctly, students need to recognize that the submerged
blocks displace the same volume of water. Therefore, the
buoyant forces are all equal. The floating block 共if present兲
displaces a smaller volume and therefore experiences a
smaller buoyant force.
After all instruction, a correct comparison of the buoyant
forces on all three submerged blocks was given by 20% of
Fig. 4. An example of a written problem in which three
blocks of equal volume are suspended underwater by
strings. There are two blocks of the same mass at dif-
ferent depths 共A and B兲 and two blocks of different
mass at the same depth 共A and C兲. Students are asked to
rank the buoyant forces and/or the tensions in the
strings.
Loverude, Kautz, and Heron 1180

the students in the introductory course (N⫽198) and about
60% in the second-year course (N⫽83). The errors made by
students in both courses were similar in nature. There was
very little variation among the different sections of each
course 共with one exception兲.17
1. Blocks of different mass submerged at the same depth
About 35% of the introductory students and 65% of the
second-year students correctly compared the buoyant forces
on blocks of different mass submerged at the same depth.
The most common incorrect answer, given by 45% of the
introductory students and 20% of the second-year students,
was that the more massive block would have a greater buoy-
ant force.
Failure to distinguish mass, volume, and density: A small
but significant fraction of students referred to the masses of
the objects, not their volumes. For example, in answering
the problem in Fig. 4, one student wrote: ‘‘The buoyant force
on C is less than that of A & B—it displaces less water due
to its smaller mass.’’ 共This tendency is discussed in detail in
Sec. V.兲
Misuse of formulas: Other students used a formula that is
appropriate only for floating objects to support the claim that
a heavier object experiences a greater buoyant force. For
example, one wrote: ‘‘F B⫽mg thus A & B are equal and
since C has less mass, smaller F B .’’
Failure to distinguish buoyant force from buoyancy: Many
students who claimed that a lighter block experiences a
greater buoyant force apparently failed to distinguish this
well-defined physical concept from the more general notion
of ‘‘buoyancy.’’ For example, one student wrote, ‘‘Buoyancy
can be looked at as the tendency for an object to be able to
float. Since C has the lowest density it will float the easiest.’’
1181 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 71, No. 11, November 2003
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
158.49.113.199 On: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:04:42
Fig. 5. A written problem on the buoy-
ant force that involves several com-
parisons. Students are first asked to
compare the buoyant force on a block
that is held underwater 共B兲 to the
buoyant force on an identical block
that is floating 共A兲 and a block of dif-
ferent mass submerged to the same
depth 共C兲. All of the blocks are then
described as being moved to a differ-
ent liquid. Students are asked how the
buoyant forces exerted on blocks A
and B compare to those exerted on the
same blocks when in water. 共The ques-
tion about block A is referred to in the
text as version 1 of the floating blocks
question.兲
2. Blocks of the same mass submerged to different depths
About 55% of the introductory students and 80% of the
second-year students answered that the buoyant forces on
identical blocks submerged to different depths would be the
same. About 30% of the introductory students and 15% of
the second-year students claimed that the buoyant force is
greater on the block at greater depth. Interpreting these re-
sponses is complicated. The written explanations were often
too vague to rule out the possibility that some students, al-
though not explicitly stating so, were assuming a significant
density gradient, in which case their answers would be cor-
rect. To gain further insight, we administered some versions
in which students were also asked to compare the tensions in
the strings holding the blocks. About 35% of the introductory
students stated that the tensions would be the same (N
⫽517).
Confusion about the relationship between pressure and
buoyant force: Vague references to the depth dependence of
pressure were common. For example, one student’s explana-
tion consisted of ‘‘F B of B is greatest because the pressure on
B is the greatest.’’ Most students seemed aware that the
forces exerted by the fluid on the individual surfaces of an
object increase with increasing depth. They may have as-
sumed that the vector sum of these forces must also increase.
However many answers suggested that students did not rec-
ognize that the term ‘‘buoyant force’’ refers to this vector
sum.
By comparing the responses of individual students to the
questions on the buoyant forces and the string tensions, we
were better able to distinguish between a misuse of terminol-
ogy and a misunderstanding about the forces exerted on a
submerged object. For example, a student who associated the
term buoyant force with the force exerted upward on the
Loverude, Kautz, and Heron 1181
 bottom surface of a block might claim that the buoyant force
is larger on the deeper block. That student could still dem-
onstrate an understanding of the physics by taking into ac-
count the downward forces exerted on the upper surfaces of
the blocks and concluding that the tensions in the strings are
the same. Of the students who claimed that the buoyant force
is greater at greater depth, about 20% answered that the ten-
sions are equal. About 45% stated that the tension would be
greater in the string supporting the lower block. This answer
also was given by 35% of the students who claimed that the
buoyant forces on the two blocks are the same. Most expla-
nations referred to the greater amount of water above the
deeper block. One explained: ‘‘Since all buoyant forces are
equal, I will ignore them. Since B is the lowest, it has the
most downward force on it from the water. T B ⬎T A .’’ Many
student responses are consistent with thinking that both a
buoyant force and an additional force are exerted on an ob-
ject by the surrounding fluid. These results suggest that the
problem is more serious than confusion about the compress-
ibility of water.
3. Identical blocks fully and partially submerged
After all instruction, 60% of the students in the introduc-
tory course (N⫽792) and 80% of the students in the second-
year course (N⫽49) correctly stated that the buoyant force
on a floating block is less than that on an identical block held
below the surface. About 30% of the introductory students
claimed that the buoyant forces are the same.
Misuse of formulas: Some students who claimed that the
buoyant forces would be equal noted that the blocks have the
same mass and referred to the equation F B⫽mg. This rela-
tionship applies only to objects that are floating freely.
Failure to recognize that the relevant volume is that of the
fluid displaced: Other students noted that the volumes of the
blocks are the same. The following explanation was typical:
‘‘They both will displace the same amount of water. F B
⫽ ␳ gV⇒same volume same buoyant force.’’ Many students
apparently did not realize that the relevant volume is that of
the liquid displaced, not that of the block itself.18 More wor-
risome is the possibility that the students did not recognize
the difference between these two quantities.
C. Relating the buoyant force on submerged objects to
the fluid density
One written problem included a question on the role of
fluid density in determining the buoyant force on submerged
objects. A block is shown attached by a string to the bottom
of a tank of water 共see Fig. 5兲. The block is then attached by
the same string to the bottom of a tank containing a different
fluid. The students are asked how the buoyant forces exerted
on the block by the two fluids compare 共most students cor-
rectly inferred from the behavior of a floating object that the
density is less than that of water兲. This problem was admin-
istered after all instruction in the introductory course.19
About 75% of the students correctly stated that the buoyant
force is greater in the more dense liquid (N⫽164). However,
many of these students also claimed that the buoyant force
on a floating object would be greater in the more dense liq-
uid. 共They typically noted that the block floats at a higher
level in the more dense liquid. This difficulty is discussed
below.兲 The tendency to associate the buoyant force with
depth also appeared in responses to this question. About 20%
1182 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 71, No. 11, November 2003
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
158.49.113.199 On: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:04:42
Fig. 6. A written question in which students are asked to compare the
buoyant forces exerted on two identical blocks floating in different liquids.
This question is referred to in the text as version 2 of the floating blocks
question.
of the students claimed that the buoyant forces are the same
in both liquids, typically noting that the block is at the same
depth in both.
D. Relating the buoyant force on floating objects to
their mass „or weight…
As noted, many students applied the formula F B⫽mg to
submerged objects. However, others failed to apply this re-
lation even in cases in which it is appropriate. For example,
on an examination question in the introductory course, stu-
dents were asked to determine the magnitude of the buoyant
force acting on a piece of ice floating in a bucket of water.
The mass of ice was given as 1000 g. Only about 50% of the
students answered correctly (N⫽65). Many tried to find the
volume displaced by the ice.
We designed some questions to gauge the ability of stu-
dents to relate the buoyant force on a floating object to its
weight. Version 1 concerns the floating block in the problem
shown in Fig. 5. The block is described as being moved from
a tank of water to a different fluid, where it clearly floats
lower. In version 2 of this question, two identical blocks are
shown floating in different liquids in side-by-side containers.
The volumes displaced by the blocks are clearly different
共see Fig. 6兲. In both versions, Newton’s second law can be
used to deduce that, because the blocks are identical and at
rest, the buoyant forces supporting the blocks must be of
equal magnitude 共knowledge of hydrostatics is not even re-
quired兲.
These questions were asked in the UW introductory course
before and after instruction. About 20% of the students an-
swered version 1 correctly (N⫽285) while about 40% an-
swered version 2 correctly (N⫽424). Among the sections
given each version, very little variation was seen. Therefore,
we attribute the higher success rate on version 2 to the fact
that it involves a more straightforward side-by-side compari-
son than version 1. On an examination in the introductory
algebra-based course at Maryland, about 20% of the students
answered version 2 correctly (N⫽161).
Failure to consider all the variables: A number of students
mentioned only the different volumes displaced in the differ-
ent liquids. For example, in answering the question in Fig. 6,
one student wrote, ‘‘We know the buoyant force on D is
greater because more amount of liquid is displaced.’’ Other
students mentioned only the fluid densities and concluded
that the buoyant force is greater on the block in the more
dense liquid.
Loverude, Kautz, and Heron 1182

Use of ‘‘compensation’’ reasoning: A number of students
argued that because the displaced volume is greater in one
case, while the fluid density is greater in the other, the buoy-
ant forces on the two blocks must be the same. For example,
one student wrote: ‘‘It depends on the density of the liquid.
Since in the diagram block E appears to be less submerged
than block D it is displacing a smaller amount of liquid, but
assuming the liquid is more dense the differences should
cancel each other out, creating equal buoyant forces.’’ This
argument seems to be based on the assumption that the two
variables 共fluid density and displaced volume兲 are inversely
proportional and will thus compensate for each other to en-
sure that the product remains constant. This type of argument
has been observed in other contexts.20 In this case, that the
fluid density and displaced volume of each liquid are propor-
tional can be considered to be a consequence of the equality
of the buoyant forces.
Tendency to relate the positions of objects to the forces
exerted on them: The most common incorrect answer was
that the buoyant force is greater on the cube that floats at a
higher level. Most students who gave this answer related the
positions of the blocks to the forces exerted on them. For
example, one wrote: ‘‘The weight of the cubes are the same,
which means it has to be the buoyant force which is causing
the difference in depth of the block. Since E is higher, it is
being pushed up more which means its buoyant force is
greater.’’ 共This tendency is discussed in greater detail in Sec.
VI.兲
V. STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF RELATED
CONCEPTS: VOLUME DISPLACEMENT
Many students’ responses to the problems described above
seem to reflect lingering confusion about concepts that are
widely assumed to be understood by university students be-
fore the study of hydrostatics begins. In a number of cases
students explicitly linked the amount of water displaced by a
submerged object to the mass of the object. We had observed
similar tendencies among elementary and middle school
teachers and nonscience majors: when asked what would
happen to the water level in two identical graduated cylin-
ders when two metal balls of the same volume but different
mass were submerged, the majority predicted that the level
would rise more for the heavier ball. This response can be
seen as a failure to distinguish between mass and
volume.21,22 We decided to explore the possibility that some
of the introductory physics students in the present investiga-
tion might have similar difficulties.
1183 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 71, No. 11, November 2003
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
158.49.113.199 On: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:04:42
Fig. 7. A student response to the written problem in
which blocks of equal volume and different mass are
lowered into cylinders of water.
A. Determining the volume displaced by objects
submerged in water
We administered a written problem in which students are
told that two blocks of the same size and shape are lowered
into graduated cylinders that have identical initial water lev-
els. One block is aluminum; the other brass. The final water
level in the cylinder containing the aluminum block is
shown. Students are asked how it will compare to the final
water level in the cylinder containing the brass block.
This problem differs from the version described above in
that the two objects are suspended at different levels 共the
aluminum block is lowered farther than the brass block兲.
Informal discussions, in which some students seemed to in-
terpret ‘‘volume displaced’’ as the volume of water above a
submerged object, prompted this modification. We were also
aware that some students fail to equate the change in water
level in a container with the volume of water displaced.
Therefore, in some versions students are asked to compare
both the final water levels and the volume of water displaced
by the two blocks. These issues proved to affect fewer than
10% of the students.
The problem was administered in several sections of the
UW introductory course, in some cases immediately prior to
the first laboratory experiment. In all, about 75% of the stu-
dents correctly stated that the final water levels would be the
same (N⫽395). At Purdue, about 65% of the students have
answered correctly (N⫽250). Although many students sup-
plied correct explanations, a few gave glib answers indicat-
ing that the answer is too obvious for explanation. At both
UW and Purdue, about 20% of the students have stated that
the water level would rise more in the cylinder containing
the heavier block.
Failure to distinguish the concepts of mass, volume, and
density from one another: Most of the students who claimed
that the final water level would be higher in the cylinder
containing the brass block explicitly cited its greater mass:
‘‘Since B has a higher mass, the volume of water displaced
will be more, so the water level will be higher.’’ One student
drew the sketch shown in Fig. 7. Other students focused on
density: ‘‘The volume displaced by A is less than volume
displaced by B because water displacement is proportional to
the object’s density.’’
B. Determining the volume displaced by objects
submerged in other fluids
The majority of students recognized that the volume of
water displaced by a submerged object is equal to the volume
of the object itself. However, in informal discussions, a few
Loverude, Kautz, and Heron 1183

of these students mentioned the density of water, implying
that it had some significance in this situation. We therefore
administered a variation of the problem described above in
which the two blocks are identical. One cylinder contains
water; the other contains oil. The first part of the question
asked students to compare the liquid levels in two identical
cylinders if each contains 500 ml of liquid. The second part
of the question asks students to compare the final liquid lev-
els if the two blocks are lowered to the same level in their
respective cylinders. This question was asked in the intro-
ductory lab before any instruction (N⫽311).
About 85% of the students answered the first part cor-
rectly. The remainder cited the different densities of the liq-
uids. Of the students who recognized that the initial liquid
levels are the same, about 60% went on to answer correctly
that the final levels will also be the same. 共The responses of
students who answered the first part incorrectly proved too
difficult to interpret.兲
Tendency to relate the volume displaced to the density of
the liquid: Most of the students who answered incorrectly
claimed that a greater volume of the less dense liquid would
be displaced. The students typically argued that a greater
volume was necessary to compensate for the lower density,
implying that the same mass of liquid must be displaced in
both cylinders.
VI. STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF RELATED
PRINCIPLES: NEWTON’S LAWS
All of the students in our study had completed a previous
course in mechanics.23 Nevertheless, in their answers to the
hydrostatics problems, many students failed to apply New-
ton’s laws correctly, if at all.
A. Recognizing the need to apply „or being able to
apply… principles from Newtonian dynamics to
hydrostatics
In responding to the five-block problem, many students
apparently assumed that a block would move from the level
at which it was released to some higher or lower level. Ref-
erences to ‘‘equilibrium’’ were common.24,25 Many explana-
tions directly or indirectly contradicted Newton’s laws. Even
students who recognized that all the blocks are initially sub-
ject to the same buoyant force failed to conclude that some
would accelerate upward while others would accelerate
downward. For instance, one student wrote: ‘‘Block 4 will be
lower than block 3 and higher than block 5 because W 3
1184 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 71, No. 11, November 2003
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
158.49.113.199 On: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:04:42
Fig. 8. Free-body diagrams for blocks 2 and 3 for a
student who gave the descending line response to the
five-block problem. The diagrams indicate that the two
blocks are subject to the same buoyant force, which is
equal to the weight in the case of block 2 共which barely
floats兲 but less than the weight for block 3, which the
student predicts will remain at rest near the center of the
tank.
⬍W4⬍W5 and all are submerged ⬖V disp are all equal ⬖FB 3
⫽FB 4 ⫽FB 5 ⬖W 4 ⬎FB 4 and W 5 ⰇFB 5 so block 4 will be
higher than block 5.’’
In one version of the problem, students were asked to
draw free-body diagrams for blocks 2 and 3 at their final
positions. Several students who predicted that block 3 would
remain suspended beneath the surface clearly indicated a
nonzero net force in their diagram. The student diagram in
Fig. 8 provides an example. Block 2, which barely floats, is
depicted as having equal upward and downward forces while
block 3, also at rest, is depicted as having a net downward
force. This diagram suggests that the block’s level is related
to the degree of imbalance between the weight and the buoy-
ant force.
For the floating blocks questions, many students who re-
lied on the formula F B⫽ ␳ gV made no reference to the mo-
tions or positions of the blocks. The inconsistency of their
answers with Newton’s second law apparently went unno-
ticed. Other students explicitly attributed the different posi-
tions of the blocks to a difference in the forces exerted on
them. Typically, the higher level of one of the blocks was
taken as evidence of a larger upward force.
B. Applying principles from Newtonian dynamics to
mechanical equilibrium problems
Many student responses on the problems described above
reflected a poor understanding of Newtonian dynamics. In an
effort to determine if the same issues would arise in contexts
free of the complications of hydrostatics, we decided to ad-
minister some mechanical equilibrium problems analogous
to those described above. The problems either require stu-
dents to predict the motions of identical objects subjected to
the same forces or to draw inferences about the forces ex-
erted on identical objects that are at rest. In both cases, the
objects are 共at least initially兲 at different levels.
The Atwood’s machine problem was suggested by a task
used to probe student understanding of gravity22 in which
students tended to assume that an imbalance in weights on
the two sides of an Atwood’s machine causes the weights to
hang at different levels, rather than to accelerate. In our ver-
sion, two identical blocks are connected by a light, inexten-
sible string that runs over a frictionless pulley 共or a smooth
peg兲. A diagram shows the blocks being held in place, with
one lower than the other 关see Fig. 9共a兲兴. The students are
asked to predict what will happen to the blocks when they
Loverude, Kautz, and Heron 1184

are released. They need to recognize that because the weights
are the same, there will be no acceleration and the blocks
will not move.
In the springs problem, students are shown two identical
blocks that are supported at different levels on nonidentical
vertical springs 关see Fig. 9共b兲兴. Students are asked to com-
pare the forces exerted on the blocks by the springs. Because
the blocks are identical and at rest, the forces exerted by the
springs must be equal in magnitude.
The problems were given in several sections of the UW
introductory course and one section of the second-year
course. All of the students had completed a previous course
in mechanics. In most cases, the two problems were admin-
istered at the same time. Correct answers to both problems
were given by about 45% of the introductory students and
about 65% of the second-year students.
About 65% of the introductory students correctly an-
swered the Atwood’s machine problem (N⫽327). 26 In the
second-year course, about 70% made a correct prediction
(N⫽46). The most common incorrect answer in both
courses was that the blocks would move until they reach the
same level 共a few students said that the blocks would oscil-
late about this new level兲. The springs problem was an-
swered correctly by 55% of the students in the introductory
course (N⫽424) and 80% of the students in the second-year
course (N⫽46). 27 About 25% of the introductory students
claimed that the force exerted by the spring on the higher
block must be greater than that on the lower block. This was
also the most common incorrect answer in the second-year
course.
Assumption that objects of the same weight (or subject to
the same forces) should be at the same level: Many of the
1185 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 71, No. 11, November 2003
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
158.49.113.199 On: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:04:42
Fig. 9. Mechanical equilibrium problems. 共a兲 The At-
wood’s machine problem. 共b兲 The springs problem.
students who gave incorrect answers to the Atwood’s ma-
chine problem referred to ‘‘equilibrium’’ in their explana-
tions. For example, one student wrote: ‘‘Block A will move
up 共and B will move down兲 until they reach the same level.
Having the same mass, the blocks will reach an equilib-
rium.’’ Some students who referred to forces came to the
same conclusion: ‘‘Block B will fall down as Block A rises
until they rest at an equal height. The same forces are acting
on equal objects therefore they will rest at equal positions.’’
The underlying assumption—that objects of the same weight
or subject to the same forces should be at the same level—
was widespread. The corresponding idea, that objects of dif-
ferent weight should be at different levels, is reminiscent of
many student responses to the five-block problem. In that
case, a number of students who gave the incorrect descend-
ing line answer simply stated that a heavier block would sink
to a lower level.
Assumption that different forces are required to keep iden-
tical objects at different levels: In their answers to the
springs problem, many students attributed the different
heights of the blocks to a difference in the applied forces. For
example, one wrote: ‘‘I would suspect that since the springs
are not yielding to the ground, then the spring forces are
greater than the gravitational force, and that the spring force
on the right spring is greater than the one on the left.’’ This
explanation suggests that a non-zero net force directed up-
ward is exerted on both blocks and that the magnitude of the
net force is greater on the higher block.
Failure to consider all the variables: Some students
claimed that a greater force is exerted by the spring on the
lower block. Most stated that this spring is ‘‘more com-
pressed,’’ but did not mention a spring constant. These stu-
Loverude, Kautz, and Heron 1185
 dents seem to have used Hooke’s law, but failed to take into
account that the springs are different, despite a comment to
this effect in the problem statement.
VII. CONCLUSION
Standard instruction on hydrostatics apparently leaves
many students unable to predict and explain the sinking and
floating behavior of simple objects. In particular, many stu-
dents were unable to identify the forces exerted on an object
by a fluid and to recognize the factors that govern the mag-
nitudes of those forces. It was clear that students had learned
the formulae F B⫽mg and F B⫽ ␳ gV. However, when no
numbers were given, students frequently used these equa-
tions inappropriately, incorrectly, or not at all. The failure of
students to recognize when their answers contradicted funda-
mental principles was widespread.
Many students did not recognize the crucial role of dis-
placed volume in determining the buoyant force. The as-
sumption that the buoyant force on a submerged object de-
pends on its mass was common. For some students, this
belief can be interpreted as a failure to distinguish clearly
between the concepts of mass and volume. Although intro-
ductory students who exhibited this difficulty were a minor-
ity, for them it may have been a critical barrier to the devel-
opment of an understanding of sinking and floating
共generally, these students were not struggling academically兲.
Many students attributed a dependence on depth to the
buoyant force that does not appear to stem from an exagger-
ated view of the compressibility of water. Rather, it seems to
reflect confusion about the relationship between pressure,
which increases with increasing depth, and buoyant force,
which only increases if the pressure gradient is nonlinear.
Our results demonstrate that the confusion is not simply lin-
guistic.
Any attempt to solve the five-block problem on the basis
of forces requires an understanding of Newtonian dynamics.
Ample evidence shows that many students successfully com-
plete introductory physics without having developed such an
understanding.28 We found that difficulties with mechanical
equilibrium were serious and widespread. Many students
made statements in their explanations for the descending line
prediction that betrayed a failure to apply the second law.
Previous research has documented the tendency to associate
the net force on an object with its velocity, rather than its
acceleration.29 In our study, students often appeared to be
using an incorrect analogue of Newton’s second law in
which position, rather than acceleration, is assumed to be
proportional to net force. Thus although previous studies
have shown that students often assume that any object hav-
ing zero velocity 共even at an instant兲 has zero net force, we
found that students often assumed that an object would re-
main at rest in spite of, or perhaps because of, a nonzero net
force.
On the five-block problem, many of the written explana-
tions lacked a logical link between the ideas expressed
共whether correct or incorrect兲 and their predictions. In some
cases, written statements appeared to contradict the predic-
tion. Moreover, essentially all of the incorrect ideas ex-
pressed were associated with the same prediction. Thus, it is
possible that many explanations were attempts to justify a
prediction based on intuition, rather than attempts to articu-
late a line of reasoning that leads to a prediction.
1186 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 71, No. 11, November 2003
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
158.49.113.199 On: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:04:42
The majority of introductory students in this investigation
failed to demonstrate an understanding of the concepts re-
quired for a correct, coherent argument. Therefore, we be-
lieve that for instruction on this topic to be successful, the
specific incorrect ideas expressed by students need to be ad-
dressed. In Ref. 4, we describe the instructional materials we
designed to help students deepen their understanding.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This investigation has benefited from the efforts of many
present and past members of the Physics Education Group.
The authors are deeply grateful for the important contribu-
tions of Lillian C. McDermott to the preparation of this paper
and to the investigation that it describes. Special thanks are
due to Peter S. Shaffer and Matthew Cochran and to the
instructors at the University of Washington, the University of
Maryland, College Park, and Purdue University in whose
classes the written problems were administered. The authors
gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science
Foundation through Grant Nos. DUE 9354501 and DUE
9727648.
a兲
Department of Physics, California State University–Fullerton, Fullerton,
CA 92834.
b兲
Department of Physics, Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg.
1
This research is described in greater detail in M. E. Loverude, ‘‘Investiga-
tion of student understanding of hydrostatics and thermal physics and of
the underlying concepts from mechanics,’’ Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Physics, University of Washington, 1999.
2
L. C. McDermott and the Physics Education Group at the University of
Washington, Physics by Inquiry 共Wiley, New York, 1996兲.
3
These materials are discussed in the companion article: P. R. L. Heron, M.
E. Loverude, P. S. Shaffer, and L. C. McDermott, ‘‘Helping students de-
velop an understanding of Archimedes’ principle. II. Development of
research-based instructional materials,’’ Am. J. Phys. 71, 1188 –1195
共2003兲, following paper.
4
See Ref. 3.
5
L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group at the
University of Washington, Tutorials in Introductory Physics 共Prentice-
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002兲.
6
Although the tutorials are used in algebra-based courses in several colleges
and universities, the algebra-based course at the University of Washington
does not have small sections at present.
7
A Cartesian diver is an object of variable density that can be made to sink
or float in response to pressure changes in a fluid.
8
The diver used in the interviews is made from the transparent bulb of a
plastic dropping pipette. A weight is attached to its open end. The bulb is
placed with its neck down in a two-liter plastic soda bottle nearly filled
with water. The bulb contains water with a bubble of air above the water.
The amount of air is adjusted so that the diver initially barely floats. When
the soda bottle is squeezed, the increase in pressure leads to a decrease in
the volume of the air bubble inside the bulb. Water enters through the neck
of the diver, thus increasing its density so that the diver sinks. 共The stu-
dents had seen a lecture demonstration involving a Cartesian diver in class,
but the apparatus differed significantly in appearance from that used in the
9
interviews.兲
Evidence that students confuse the concepts of pressure and weight can be
found in Ref. 1, as well as in E. Engel Clough and R. Driver, ‘‘What do
children understand about pressure in fluids?,’’ Res. Sci. Tech. Ed. 3, 133–
143 共1985兲 and in P. Kariotoglou and D. Psillos, ‘‘Pupils’ pressure models
and their implications for instruction,’’ ibid. 11, 95–108 共1993兲.
10
In most cases, we have found that the results for a given problem are
essentially the same whether administered on a non-graded quiz or on a
graded course examination. For related results, see C. Henderson, ‘‘Com-
mon concerns about the force concept inventory,’’ Phys. Teach. 40, 542–
547 共2002兲.
11
In our experience, the variation in results from class to class is usually
very small. In particular, for large classes (N⬃100 or more兲 we have
found that the success rates of individual classes usually fall within about
5% of the mean taken over several classes. Therefore, we have reported all
Loverude, Kautz, and Heron 1186
 percentages rounded to the nearest five percent. In the second-year course
the number of students is typically much smaller and we collected data
from fewer sections. Our experience has been that the variation is compa-
rable to that in the case of larger classes. However, the primary function of
the data from the second-year course is to illustrate the extent to which
similar conceptual issues surface among students who typically have a
stronger mathematical background and who have had more instruction on
the topic.
12
In many of the written questions discussed in this article, blocks are de-
picted as floating with surfaces parallel to the water surface. In practice
these blocks would float with one corner up. We have not found this to be
a source of confusion for students nor did we wish to explore the issue of
stability with these questions. We have revised the questions so that cur-
rent versions refer to cylinders instead of blocks.
13
Only classes in which we can be certain that none of the students had
participated in the relevant lab are included. In one case the students were
not asked to write their names and so the lab students cannot be separated
from the rest of the class. Therefore we have excluded these results. Also
excluded are results from a class in which about half the students had
participated in the lab, and there was evidence that a number of students
changed their answers while taking the ungraded quiz 共an unusual occur-
rence兲. Results obtained after the lab are discussed in detail in Ref. 4.
14
For instances in which results have been similar before and after instruc-
tion, see, for example, L. C. McDermott, ‘‘Millikan Lecture 1990: What
we teach and what is learned—Closing the gap,’’ Am. J. Phys. 59, 301–
315 共1991兲 and L. C. McDermott, ‘‘Guest comment: How we teach and
how students learn—a mismatch?,’’ ibid. 61, 295–298 共1993兲.
15
Compressibility had not been an issue in our investigation of student un-
derstanding of hydrostatic pressure. In that study, students attributed pres-
sure gradients to a number of different variables. Density, however, was
not one of them.
16
The prevalence of the descending line response was essentially the same
as on versions in which no free-body diagrams were required. It seems that
additional questions did not help students arrive at correct answers.
17
After collecting the students’ responses to the five-block problem, the in-
structor in one section of the introductory course conducted a class discus-
sion in which he explained the correct answer and discussed the common
incorrect descending line answer. This discussion may have had an effect
on the students’ subsequent ability to answer other questions.
18
For other examples in which students apply formulae without understand-
ing the terms, see B. S. Ambrose, P. S. Shaffer, R. N. Steinberg, and L. C.
McDermott, ‘‘An investigation of student understanding of single-slit dif-
fraction and double-slit interference,’’ Am. J. Phys. 67, 146 –155 共1999兲;
L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, ‘‘Research as a guide for curriculum
development: An example from introductory electricity, Part I: Investiga-
tion of student understanding,’’ ibid. 60, 994 –1003 共1992兲; 61, 81共E兲
共1993兲.
19
In this case, the students had also performed a laboratory experiment on
buoyancy in which they measured the buoyant force on the same block
suspended in two different liquids.
20
See, for example, R. A. Lawson and L. C. McDermott, ‘‘Student under-
1187 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 71, No. 11, November 2003
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
158.49.113.199 On: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:04:42
standing of the work-energy and impulse-momentum theorems,’’ Am. J.
Phys. 55, 811– 817 共1987兲 and M. E. Loverude, C. H. Kautz, and P. R. L.
Heron, ‘‘Student understanding of the first law of thermodynamics: Relat-
ing work to the adiabatic compression of a gas,’’ ibid. 70, 137–148 共2002兲.
21
Difficulties in distinguishing mass and volume are described in M. L.
Rosenquist, ‘‘Improving preparation for college physics of minority stu-
dents aspiring to science-related careers,’’ Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Physics, University of Washington, 1982, p. 74.
22
For related results, see J. McKinnon and J. W. Renner, ‘‘Are colleges
concerned with intellectual development?,’’ Am. J. Phys. 39, 1047–1052
共1971兲 and J. McKinnon, ‘‘Earth science, density, and the college fresh-
man,’’ J. Geol. Educ. 19, 218 –220 共1971兲.
23
We note that the mechanics courses did not include relevant tutorials from
Ref. 5. However, even if they had, it may be unrealistic to assume that
students would gain enough facility during their initial study of dynamics
to apply their knowledge of forces in the more complicated environment
of a liquid.
24
For examples in mechanics in which students inappropriately refer to equi-
librium positions, see R. F. Gunstone, ‘‘Student understanding in mechan-
ics: A large population survey,’’ Am. J. Phys. 55, 691– 696 共1987兲 and R.
F. Gunstone and R. T. White, ‘‘Understanding of Gravity,’’ Sci. Educ. 65,
291 共1981兲.
25
Similar difficulties with the concept of equilibrium have been documented
in the context of thermal physics and rigid-body dynamics. See C. Kautz,
‘‘Investigation of student understanding of the macroscopic and micro-
scopic behavior of an ideal gas,’’ Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Phys-
ics, University of Washington, 1999 and L. G. Ortiz, ‘‘Identifying and
Addressing Student Difficulties with Rotational Dynamics,’’ Ph.D. disser-
tation, Department of Physics, University of Washington, 2001.
26
On a similar question asked on an end-of-high-school examination in Aus-
tralia, Gunstone reported that about 45% of the students answered cor-
rectly, with about 35% giving the answer that the blocks would return to
the same level 共see Ref. 24兲.
27
In some cases, students were instructed to draw free-body diagrams for
each block. The results were apparently unaffected.
28
In addition to the references already cited, see L. C. McDermott, ‘‘Re-
search on conceptual understanding in mechanics,’’ Phys. Today 37,
24 –32 共1984兲; D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, ‘‘Force con-
cept inventory,’’ Phys. Teach. 30, 141–158 共1992兲; R. R. Hake,
‘‘Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-
student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,’’
Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 –74 共1998兲. Besides this representative sample, an
extensive bibliography can be found in L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish,
‘‘Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research,’’ ibid. 67, 755–767
共1999兲. The emphasis in this resource letter is on university students and
on references readily available to physicists.
29
See, for example, L. Viennot, ‘‘Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dy-
namics,’’ Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 205–221 共1979兲; A. Champagne, L. Klopfer,
and J. Anderson, ‘‘Factors influencing the learning of classical mechan-
ics,’’ Am. J. Phys. 48, 1074 –1079 共1980兲 and J. Clement, ‘‘Students’ pre-
conceptions in introductory mechanics,’’ ibid. 50, 66 –71 共1982兲.
Loverude, Kautz, and Heron 1187