See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229758478

Understanding gravity

Article in Science Education · July 1981

DOI: 10.1002/sce.3730650308

CITATIONS READS

301 6,590

2 authors:

Richard Gunstone Richard White

Monash University (Australia) Monash University (Australia)
136 PUBLICATIONS 6,241 CITATIONS 87 PUBLICATIONS 4,328 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Gunstone on 28 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Understanding of Gravity

RICHARD F. GUNSTONE AND RICHARD T. WHITE

Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia 3168

Purpose

We investigated the knowledge of gravity possessed by first-year physics students at

Monash University. Since the investigation took place in the first week of the 1980 lecture
year, and the students had not had time to be affected by the university instruction, they
can be taken as representatives of the complete range of schools in the State of Victoria,
together with a few from interstate and a more substantial number from Malaysia.
The context of the investigation is a series of studies and theoretical papers concerned
with learning, particularly of the sciences, going back to validation of learning hierarchies
(White, 1974), the use of hierarchies to ensure achievement of intellectual skills
(Trembath & White, 1975), the specification of different types of elements in memory
(Gagne & White, 1978), the description of a model of cognitive processes (White, 1977),
and the distinction of achievement, proficiency, and mastery as levels of outcomes (White,
1979a). Within this context, recent attention has heen given to developing methods of
probing understanding (White, 1979b), which include both individual interviews and
techniques which can be used with large numbers of participants. The present investi-
gation belongs to the latter class. It relies on presenting participants with a physical sit-
uation, asking them to make a prediction about what will happen if a certain action is
taken, then demonstrating the action and requiring the participants to observe it and
explain any discrepancy with their prediction. This procedure was developed at the
University of Pittsburgh (Champagne, Klopfer, & Anderson, 1979).
The immediate purpose of the investigation is evaluation of a state of affairs: to see
how things stand in Victoria with respect to understanding of gravity and related prin-
ciples of mechanics. As well as being of interest in their own right, the results will influence
future development of the theoretical and empirical context outlined earlier, though this
aspect will not be touched on further in this paper.

Method

The investigation was based on eight physical situations, all involving some aspect of
gravity. Nearly all follow the pattern of prediction, demonstration, observation, and
explanation mentioned earlier.
The first year physics students at Monash University are divided into five groups. Each
was available to us for one hour, which was insufficient to present all eight situations.
Therefore different sets of situations were presented to the groups, so that each saw five
or six situations.
The students were told that the purpose of the investigation was to find out more about

Science Education 65(3): 291-299 (1981)

0 1981 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-8326/81/030291-09$01.00
292 GUNSTONE AND WHITE

TABLE I
Summary of Percent Successful on Each Task
Situation % Correct

Forces acting on supported eraser 86

Explanation of motion of falling eraser 98
Predictions of speeds of falling eraser 92
Prediction of times of fall of spheres 76
Relative weights of suspended bucket and block 70
Prediction of effect of addition of sand 54
Prediction of speeds of bucket 90
Releasing of suspended block 54
Releasing of block on plank 75
.. Spring balance on Mt. Everest 29

their understanding of basic physical principles than was possible with a standard formal
examination. They were assured that it had nothing to do with their end-of-year assess-
ment. They were encouraged to write a lot in the course of making predictions and ob-
servations and in their explanations.
The five sessions ran smoothly.

Results

One problem with this style of investigation is how to reduce the rich and voluminous
data to a reportable size. Our solution is to provide an overall summary, more detailed
results for each of the eight situations, illustrative quotes from the students’ responses,
and comments.
The overall summary is in Table I, which indicates the proportion of students who could
perform each task.
Situation A ( n = 175)
A book with a blackboard eraser placed on it was held horizontally ahout 2 m above
the bench. Students were asked why the eraser did not start moving when the book was
under it. Sixteen students (9%) indicated that the book did not exert a force on the eraser,
while five (3%) stated that the reaction force acting on the eraser was not equal to the
eraser’s weight.
The book was then quickly removed. Students were asked to indicate what set the eraser
in motion. Adequate answers were given by all but 3.
Then the eraser was held next to a marker (the Top marker) about 2 m from the bench.
Other markers were about 1 m from the bench (Mid) and just above the bench (Bottom).
Students were asked to predict how speed at Mid would compare with speed at Bottom
when the eraser was dropped, and to give the knowledge on which the prediction was
based. The eraser was then dropped (Table 11).
Comments. Only 34 (19%) commented on the difficulty of the observation task. 32 (1 8%)
concluded that air resistance had significant effect on the motion and 16 (9%) concluded
that the distances between markers were not great enough to allow observable differences
in speeds to be reached. Almost all of these 48 students predicted Bottom > Mid and
observed Bottom = Mid. ‘
There was a tendency to observe the prediction. For 13 of the 14 predictions other than
 A MATTER OF GRAVITY 293

TABLE II
Predictions and Observations of the Speed of a Falling Eraser
~

Prediction
Observation Bottom > Mid. Bottom = Mid. Bottom < Mid.

Bottom > Mid 98 0 0 98

Bottom = Mid 48 12 0 60
Bottom < Mid 2 0 1 3

Could not observe 8 1 0 9

No observation 5 0 0 5
161 13 1 175

Bottom > Mid, observation confirmed the prediction. Although reaching terminal velocity
was the most common reason for predicting equal speeds, mathematics was used in some
+
cases (e.g. “ u 2 = u2 2as; a is constant, s is constant, hence u is constant.”)
Some students who had made quantitative predictions claimed remarkable powers
of observation: of the 25 who had predicted a difference of &!times, 9 observed it to be
J2 times faster, and one that it was “about 1.2.”
Situation B ( n = 176)
An iron sphere and a plastic sphere of the same diameter (10 cm) were held next to
each other 2 m above the bench, beside the top mark used in Situation A. The participants
were asked “How will the time it takes for the metal sphere to fall from the mark to the
bench compare with the time it takes the rubber sphere to fall from the mark to the
bench?” They were asked to write down the knowledge used in making the predic-
tion.
The spheres were then dropped three times, and the participants were asked to record
their observations and to explain any discrepancy with their prediction (Table 111).

Comments. 25% predicted there would be a difference in speeds. Of these, 3/5 said this
is due to air resistance and 2/5 said it is because a bigger weight will cause bigger accel-
eration. Those who predicted the metal ball would take less time were much more likely
than the others to see it arrive first.
Of the 131 who predicted equal times, only 7 referred to personal experience as the
basis of their knowledge; 21 invoked Galileo as an authority. Most of the 131 simply
asserted that all things fall at the same rate. A minority “proved” it mathematically.

TABLE 111
Predictions and Observations for Falling Spheres

Prediction
Observation Equal Metal faster Plastic faster

Equal 128 28 0 156

Metal faster 2 10 0 12
Plastic faster 1 4 0 5
131 42 0

Note: In addition, two predicted the metal would be faster but recorded no observation, and one predicted they would
be ”different” and saw them as being equal.
294 GUNSTONE AND WHITE

TABLE IV
Opinions About Weights of Bucket and Block
Weights equal Block heavier Bucket heavier

n 320 122 17
% 70 27 4
~~ ~

Note: In addition, two said they could not tell, one said the weights were different, and one made an uninterpretable
reply

Incorrect reasoning was present in at least 10%of the cases; e.g., “Metal sphere will ac-
celerate more than rubber :. time for metal < time for rubber. Gravity exerts the same
force on all objects no matter what their weight.”
Where the observation conflicted with the prediction, the usual response was to say
air resistance was less (or more) than anticipated. Next most common response was to
ignore the discrepancy.
Situation C ( n = 463)
The apparatus was a bicycle wheel mounted as a pulley with its axis about 2 m above
the bench, and a bucket of sand and a block of wood of the same mass which were con-
nected by a cord. The participants were shown that the pulley rotated freely, and then
the cord was placed over the pulley so that the bucket was markedly higher than the block.
The participants were asked “How does the weight of the bucket compare with the weight
of the block?” (Table IV).
The participants were asked whether they based their answer on observation or
knowledge or both, and if knowledge was used they were asked to describe it. Most of
those who said the block was heavier said they relied on observation, and gave no further
reason or merely a circular one. The tone of their replies is that it is self-evident that the
block is heavier: “The block is heavier than the bucket. Since the block is nearer to the
floor, hence it must be heavier.”
The next largest group among those who said the block is heavier contains those classed
as giving uninterpretable reasons. These are diverse. “In the string used to link both the
bucket and the block together over the pulley, tension exists in both its end. At the end
towards the bucket, the tension is less than at the end towards the block. This then causes
the block to pull itself down and thereby raising the bucket.” “F = ma. Acc. is uniform
:.
for both. Since mass of block is greater the block will pull up the bucket.”
A few drew inappropriate analogies, to seesaws, beam balances, or spring balances.
Another small group operated on a principle of equipartition of energy between the block
and bucket: “Total energy is the same throughout, i.e., conservation of energy. mlghI
= mzgh2. P.E. of bucket is same as P.E. of the block. But hl > h2 :. m2 > ml.”
The 17 who said the bucket is heavier can be classified in a similar way to those who
say the block is heavier. About 80% of those who said they are of equal weight gave ac-
ceptable reasons; the rest gave incorrect or no reasons.
Situation D ( n = 463)
This was a continuation of Situation C . The participants were shown a very small
spoonful of sand, and asked to predict what would happen when it was added to the bucket.
After they had written their predictions, the sand was added to the bucket, when, because
of the friction in the axle of the wheel, no motion occurred. The participants were asked
 A MATTER OF GRAVITY 295

to record their observation, and if it was contrary to their prediction to explain the dis-
crepancy.
This procedure was repeated with a large scoop of sand, in which case the bucket ac-
celerated smoothly to the bench.
Just over half (249, 54%) of the participants made substantially correct predictions
and observations for the two parts of the situation, though some of these made incorrect
predictions about the magnitude of the acceleration of the bucket or block, such as a =
g, or that they would move with constant velocity.
Among the rest there was a predominant belief, that the added weights would cause
a small shift of the bucket and block to a “new equilibrium” position. This notion was
shown by 140 (30%) participants. “The existing system will be no more and the new
system will be one in which the bucket will be ultimately closer to the table and the block
higher from the table, but still in equilibrium.” “The bucket will fall slightly and the block
will be raised by a similar amount. After they move they will then have a new equilib-
rium.”
The most remarkable feature of these people was that in the case of the scoop of sand
not one of them attempted to resolve the discrepancy between their predictions and ob-
servations. Most ignored it. For the spoonful of sand some did invoke friction. A few
implied that the spoon of sand did cause a movement, but too slight a one to see. Two
people actually saw movement, identical to that which they had predicted.
Another common prediction (33 people, 7%) was that the large scoop of sand would
not be sufficient to overcome the friction in the wheel. This indicates a lack of experience
with bicycle wheels, or an inability to relate the forces involved.
The rest of the responses were diverse. Some said the sand was insufficient to overcome
the inertia of the system, others that the amounts were negligible without explaining in
what way they were negligible. There was a proportion of very odd statements:
“First the bucket would be pulled down and the block will be pulled up. Then the block
will pull the bucket up the pulley until the block reaches the ground.”
“Theoretically the bucket of sand weighs heavier therefore it should go higher up in
the pulley.”
“The small teaspoon of sand would not make much difference to the weight of the
bucket. Hence, the bucket would still be lifted higher than the block of wood, showing
its lesser density.”

Situation E ( n = 163)
The bucket and block were placed on the pulley as in Situations C and D. A scoop of
sand was to be added to the bucket, repeating the second part of D, which all the partic-
ipants had already seen. The participants were asked to predict how the speed of the
bucket at two markers would compare. One marker (the High mark) was about 0.6 m
below the bucket, the second (the Low mark) was about 1.2 m below the bucket.
Most students (144,90%) correctly predicted that the speed at the Low mark would
be greater than that at the High. Of these, 4 indicated that their prediction was based
on knowledge that the gravitational force acting on the bucket increased as the bucket
lowered (or force on block decreased as the block rose), 12 specifically stated that the
acceleration of the bucket would be g, and 10 observed the speed to be equal at the two
marks. The reconciliations of prediction and observation given by these 10 students in-
cluded “no net force,” “objects only accelerate in free fall,” “friction,” and “error in
observation .”
296 GUNSTONE AND WHITE

TABLE V
Predictions in Situation F

Prediction n

1. System will remain stationary’ 253 (54%)

2. System will return to original position 164 (35%)
3. Bucket will fall 40 (9%)
4. Block will fall 9 (2%)

* Note: In 8 of the 253 cases of this prediction respondents indicated that they would have anticipated movement
if there was less friction in the pulley.

Of the 16 students giving other predictions, 6 said speed at High would be greater than
speed at Low. Five of these 6 students observed speed at Low to be greater than speed
at High, but only 1 of these adequately reconciled prediction and observation. The re-
maining 10 students predicted the speeds would be equal (and 9 observed this).
Situation F ( n = 466)
The block of wood and bucket of sand were placed on the pulley so that they were at
the same level and hung freely. The block was then pulled down about 0.7 meter and held.
Students were asked to predict what would happen when the block was released (Table
V).
Various reasons were given for predictions 2 to 4 of Table V. Of the 21 3 such predictions
94 were of the general form encompassed by “the system will return to where it was in
equilibrium” or “fall back to the equilibrium position” or “it was balanced before, so
it will go back” or “it went down because of an applied force, therefore if the force is re-
moved it will go back.” These reasons appear to be intuitive rather than rational. In ad-
dition to these 94, another 19 respondents gave no reason at all, 7 indicated “common
sense,” and 6 responded “a guess.” Thus a total of 126 students gave statements (or no
statement) in support of a prediction of movement which were based on intuition rather
than on physics knowledge.
There was observational evidence that many students had a strong belief that the system
would return to its original position when released. Numerous exclamations of surprise
were given when the system remained stationary.
The 21 3 students who gave predictions of movement often made unexpected responses
to the request to reconcile prediction and observation. Only 27 showed that they were
now correctly interpreting the situation, while another 17 talked of notions such as ‘‘new
equilibrium” which may have indicated a correct interpretation. This leaves 169 who
did not learn from the observation, or learnt incorrectly. Friction was given as the ex-
planation by 54 students (i,e., the system would have returned had there been less friction
in the pulley), while 66 gave either no answer or statements indicating exasperation. The
remaining 49 students gave a wide variety of reasons including “inertia too large,” “the
elasticity of the plastic bucket,” and “the block was held for some time at its new position.”
Two students said the block had been given extra mass or weight by being pulled
down.
Equilibrium was seen in an odd way by many students. It was, during this demon-
stration, ‘:shattered,” “lost,” “upset,” “destroyed,” “sought,” “immediately reestab-
lished,” “obtained,” systems “wanted to go back to it.” It was apparently seen as some
sort of real entity contained in objects rather than as a description of a particular physical
state.
 A MATTER OF GRAVITY 297

TABLE VI
Predictions for Situation G

Prediction n

1. Bucket falls to floor 216 (75%)

2. BucketlBlock remain stationary 69 (24%)
3. Block moves a bit 4 (1%)

Situation G ( n = 289)
This task used the block of wood and a bucket of sand of weight equal to that of the
block. Students were told that the weights were equal. The block and bucket were con-
nected by a piece of cord. The block was held on a horizontal board with a reasonably
smooth surface, and the bucket left to hang freely. Students were asked to predict what
would happen when the block was released (Table VI).
For predictions 2 and 3 of Table VI, 58 of the 73 predictions were supported by either
some form of the argument that “the weights are equal and hence cancel,” or “friction
between the block and the horizontal surface will prevent motion,” or a combination of
these two. When these 73 students came to reconcile their prediction with the rather
dramatic motion which was observed when the block was released, there was considerably
more evidence of learning from the demonstration than was the case in section F. In all,
25 students gave quite acceptable explanations, while another 17 gave a clear indication
of having seen something of the explanation even though they had made incorrect
statements in their reconcilation. That is, their responses suggested that one or two ap-
propriate questions from an instructor would have resulted in the students having a
reasonable understanding of why motion occurred.
Among the small number of particularly unusual reconciliations of observation and
prediction were “Gravity overcame the inertia of the system,” “Probably that swinging
of the bucket allowed the bucket to gain momentum such that, on release, the momentum
is greater than the limiting friction of the wooden surfaces,” “. . . height difference ( U
= mgh).”
Attempts at rationalizing the unexpected observation were much less common than
in F, perhaps because the demonstration is much more dramatic. That is, in the face of
somewhat spectacular motion, a student who predicted that the system would remain
stationary was likely to start from the assumption that the prediction was wrong. In the
case of F many students who had predicted movement started their attempts at reconciling
prediction and observation from the assumption that the prediction was correct. This
result in attempts to rationalize the observation, e g , friction was such that the pulley
couldn’t turn, otherwise the system would have returned.
Situation H ( n = 458)
The participants were shown a large spring balance on which hung a bucket of sand
so that the pointer was at the middle mark of the 40-mark scale. They had a sheet of paper
on which were four copies of the scale. They were asked to mark the observed position
of the pointer on the first copy. On the other copies they had to mark predicted positions
of the pointer if the apparatus were taken to the tops of the University’s tallest building,
Mt Kosciusko, and Mt Everest, the heights of which were given as 44 m, 2200 m and 8800
m respectively. They were asked what knowledge they used to make their predictions.
298 GUNSTONE AND WHITE

TABLE VII
Shift in Position of Pointer for Mt. Everest

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Shift up 4 6 3 6 3 6 2 2 2 9 1 2 8 5 1 0 2 8 5 6 1 5 1 5 2 3 4 1 4
Shift down 1 1 5 3 4 3 0 0 3 3 5 2 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1
Total 136 57 41 39 26 32 12 8 8 13 33 7 6 1 5 18 3 3 4 1 5

Knowledge that gravity decreases with height is widespread, but responses to this
situation reveal ignorance of the scale of reduction. At the top of Everest gravity has fallen
by about one part in 400, or about 0.05 of a scale division. Only 136 (29%) indicated a
shift of zero to half a scale division. Of these, 36 gave no reason and 44 gave wrong reasons.
“Gravitation attraction is constant everywhere”; “Newton’s law of motion. Gravity and
mass was constant therefore the force extended exerted must be the same”; “Weight =
mg and is independent of height”; “Gravitational pull is the same at whatever altitude.”
Thus only 56 (1 2%) gave a reasoned correct response.
There were 44 ( 1 0%) who showed the pointer getting lower with increasing height.
Their written reasons show that they thought gravity was decreasing, so these responses
must be considered as aberrations or as indicators of lack of experience with spring bal-
ances (Table VII).
The responses for Kosciusko were a smaller version of those for Everest. The responses
for the building further illustrate the lack of sense of scale commented on above. Although
402 (88%) show no shift, there are 46 who predict a shift of 1 scale division, 5 who predict
2, and 5 who predict more than 2 .
Most of those who showed shifts, for Mt. Everest at least, gave either no reason or said
it was because gravity decreased with height. The next most common type of reason was
confused thoughts about the effect of air (12, only a small proportion but still remarkable
that there are any at all): “Common sense that the rarefield air will make the bucket weigh
less thus rising the marker to the appropriate levels’’-this student made a shift for Everest
up 20 marks to zero; “When using spring balances the air resistance affects the reading.
As the height increases the reading on the balance decreases”; “Atmospheric pressure
is decreasing but the spring’s tension (stiffness) remains the same so the downward force
decreases allowing the spring to contract further I think.” A few others gave a motley
of reasons such as the effect of temperature or distance from the equator.

General Observations

The summaries given for Situations A to H and the osmotic effect of reading several
times through 468 protocols lead us to make some general observations. Perhaps the most
important and general of these is the conclusion that the students know a lot of physics
but do not reiate it to the everyday world. This is shown in the widespread errors of scale
in estimating the effects of friction and air resistance and the relation between height
and gravitational field strength, in the minimal number who used experience to support
their prediction in Situation B, and in the large number who related the pulley system
incorrectly to see-saws, beam balances, and the like. This conclusion has a vital implication
for the teaching of physics: much more attention may have to be given to integrating the
knowledge acquired in school to general knowledge.
The second point is really another aspect of the first. In many instances the students
 A MATTER OF GRAVITY 299

used mathematical equations to explain predictions, though often inappropriately, which

indicates that they had lots of physics knowledge to hand but were unskilled in seeing
which bit applied to the given situation.
A serious deficiency is the inability to explain a prediction. Many of the attempts were
narrowly circular, or reflected intuition rather than rational assessment. Another related
aspect is the failure to resolve discrepancies between predictions and observations, which
was particularly noticeable in Situations D and F. Some, of course, avoided the dis-
crepancy by observing what they had predicted, even when hardly anyone else saw it that
way. Some even managed not to observe at all and gave mathematical equations when
asked what they had seen. This is one instance of anti-scienceamong the students; another
is their reliance on authority, such as Galileo, as support for a prediction.
We would not have been surprised to find misuse of the concept of inertia. However,
inertia was invoked rather rarely. What was surprising was the prevalence of the notion
of equilibrium, as a state of Nirvana which systems seek. It was the most obvious fixation
of a large proportion of students.
These observations have implications for research experiments as well as for teaching.
They suggest that dependent variables in investigations cou!d include the degree of in-
tegration of school learning with general knowledge, the ability to explain, and the ac-
curacy of observation.
Finally, it must be emphasised that the students in this investigation are the successful
fraction from 13 years of schooling. Their shortcomings are likely to be compounded in
the less successful majority. Certainly these first year university students did not show
much evidence of some of the unfortunate characteristics observed in 1lth grade physics
students in our preliminary study (Champagne, Gunstone, & White, 1980), such as
confusion of quantities, reification, and animism.
While this might indicate that the instruction in 12th grade diminishes these short-
comings, the over-all performance of the participants in this large scale study remains
a matter for concern.

References

Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T. Knowledge of basic principles of dynamics.
Monash University, 1980.
Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., & Anderson, J. Factors influencing the learning of classical
mechanics. University of Pittsburgh, 1979.
Gagni, R. M., & White, R. T. Memory structures and learning outcomes. Rev. Educ. Res., 1978,
48,187-222.
Trembath, R. J., & White, R. T. Use of learning hierarchies in promoting mastery learning. Res.
Sci. Educ., 1975, 5 , 135-142.
White, R. T. The validation of a learning hierarchy. Am. Educ. Res. J . , 1974,11, 121-136.
White, R. T. A model of cognitive processes. Res. Sci. Educ., 1977, 7 , 25-32.
White, R. T. Achievement, mastery, proficiency, competence. Studies in Science Education, 1979a,
6, 1-22.
White, R. T. Describing cognitive structure. Paper given at the meeting of the Australian Asso-
ciation for Research in Education, Melbourne, November 1979b.

Received 18 June 1980

Revised 20 November 1980
Accepted for publication 19 January 1981

View publication stats