Shovi PDF

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 52, NO. 9, PP.
1234–1268 (2015)
Research Article
Teaching a New Conceptual Framework of Weight and Gravitation

in Middle School
Hana Stein,1 Igal Galili,2 and Yaron Schur3
1
School of Education, Achva Academic College, Arugot, Israel
2
Science Teaching Center, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
3
David Yellin Academic College of Education, Jerusalem, Israel
Received 23 July 2014; Accepted 7 March 2015
Abstract: Empirical studies have reported difficulties, confusion, and lack of understanding among
students at all levels of instruction regarding the issue of weight–gravitation–weighing relationships. This
study examined the impact of a new conceptual framework of weight, on a small group of 7th-grade students
(N ¼ 14) in a middle school in Israel. This conceptual framework, which defined weight operationally as
weighing results, implied a natural distinction between weight and gravitational force, in contrast to the
gravitational definition of weight, which identifies these two concepts. The new framework not only better
fits modern scientific epistemology but also matches the common intuitive conception of weight as
representing the heaviness of objects. This coherence promises innovative teaching leading to easier and
more meaningful learning. The applied pedagogical method included a historical excurse and knowledge
mediation through a discursive mode of teaching using images of different environments (Thinking Journey).
The collected data of students’ knowledge were structured in terms of scheme-facets of knowledge, which
allowed qualitative evaluation of knowledge changes due to the instruction. We found that discussion of the
lunar environment led students to appreciate the universality of gravitational attraction and to develop
operational meaning for the up-down direction. Considering the environment of a coasting satellite
encouraged students to distinguish between the gravitational force causing the orbiting around the Earth, and
weight as the force that objects naturally exert on their support. It appeared that falling served as an anchoring
concept leading students to the operational definition of weight. # 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci
Teach 52: 1234–1268, 2015
Keywords: students’ knowledge of weight and gravitation; scheme-facets structure of knowledge;
conceptual framework; operational definition of weight; historical excurse; Thinking Journey; mediated
instruction; constructivist pedagogy
The role of concepts and their relationships is central in science and in science curricula (e.g.,
Andersen, Barker, & Chen, 2006; Arons, 1990; Ding, Chabay, & Sherwood, 2013; Fraser et al.,
2014; Hobson, 2003; Holton & Brush, 1973; Kuhn, 1970; Margenau, 1950; Neumann et al., 2013;
Novak, 1991). Concepts are widely discussed in science education, expressing a special need
for their clarification as required in the process of learning (e.g., Duit, Gropengießer, &
Kattmann, 2005). This article deals with the concept of weight, which despite being among the
fundamentals in school physics, encompasses controversy, and causes much confusion among
Correspondence to: I. Galili; E-mail: igal.galili@mail.huji.ac.il

DOI 10.1002/tea.21238
Published online 12 May 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
# 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

TEACHING A NEW CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF WEIGHT GRAVITATION 1235
students, especially with respect to its relation to other concepts such as gravity and gravitational
force. To appreciate the problem in the school curriculum with regard to teaching about weight,
one may take a look at the textbooks of introductory university courses which serve a main
reference in teaching physics. One may find there that weight is taught in two different conceptual
frameworks (Galili, 1993, 2001; Galili & Lehavi, 2003, 2006).
In the first approach, which is popular in many countries, weight is defined as the force of
gravitation exerted on a particular object (the “gravitational weight“ approach). This account of
weight draws on the long tradition starting from Newton. In its modern version, this instruction
splits into true weight, the gravitational force itself, and apparent (effective) weight, which
corresponds to the weighing results (e.g., Knight, 2004; Halliday & Resnick, 1988; Hecht, 1994;
Resnick & Halliday, 1966; Sears & Zemansky, 1882; Young & Freedman, 2004, 2012). The true
weight is depicted by the Second Newton law:
W ¼ mg ð1Þ
with g standing for the free falling acceleration due to the gravitational attraction.
In another teaching approach, weight is introduced through the operational definition. The
notion of “operational weight“ entered physics in the 20th century. In this approach, weight is
distinguished from the gravitational force and is defined operationally as a result of a weighing
procedure (e.g., Knight, 2013; Lerner, 1996; Marion & Hornyack, 1982; Halliday, Resnick, &
Walker, 2001; Walker, 2008). Some textbooks (e.g., Keller et al., 1993) express the operational
definition of weight (W) in the following form:
W ¼ mg ð2Þ
The difference between the two looking similar equations is that g* stands for the acceleration
of free falling as measured by any observer. Using this effective acceleration corresponds to the
environment in any frame of reference implying the possible contribution of inertial forces as
happens in a rotating frame of reference, such as for a person standing on the Earth’s surface
(Knight, 2013; French, 1971; Taylor, 1974).1
The central implication of the operational definition is the split between the two concepts:
weight—the heaviness of a body measured in weighing and referring to the force exerted by the
body on its support, and gravitational force which stands for the force of attraction between any
two bodies. The striking difference between the two approaches to the weight concept emerges
when explaining the state of weightlessness in a free falling environment such as in a satellite.
When weight is defined as gravitational force, weightlessness is fictitious—“weightlessness“—a
misleading perception of missing the presence of gravitation. This is in contrast to the operational
definition approach in which weightlessness in a satellite is real. Objects lack weight in a free fall,
or free gravitational motion (Galili, 1995; Hewitt, 2002; Knight, 2013; Lerner, 1996).
In school curricula, the instruction of weight changes along the K-12 continuum. The
elementary school curriculum normally introduces weight operationally, using weighing with a
calibrated scale. In middle school, students’ initial operational knowledge of weight meets with
physics theory, which relates weight to the gravitational attraction and often equates it to
gravitational force (the “gravitational weight“ approach).2 Weight as a force is distinguished from
mass as a quantity of matter—two different concepts. Later, in high school, such instruction
distinguishes between weighing results (apparent weight) and the gravitational force (true weight)
exerted on the object. Built in to this curricular arrangement we find discontinuity and
Journal of Research in Science Teaching

1236 STEIN, GALILI, AND SCHUR
inconsistency in the relationship between the concept and its measurement. One may relate such
instruction to the difficulties of students who massively fail to distinguish between weight,
weighing results, and the gravitational force.
Our study investigates the impact of a new conceptual framework of weight—an
experimental teaching of operationally defined weight in early middle school. This presents a
curricular innovation in our country which eliminates the above-mentioned problem. Gravitation-
al force is introduced as causing weight, but not as the weight itself. Weight preserves the meaning
of heaviness of objects to be supported to prevent their falling.
We will briefly review the theoretical background with respect to the weight concept, the
applied conceptual frameworks and reported problems of students’ understanding. We then
present the new teaching regarding weight and our research methodology. The rationale of this
study, in which we probed the effectiveness of a new teaching of weight-gravitation in middle
school, draws on two important aspects. The first one is that the operational definition of weight is
more scientifically appropriate than the common gravitational one. The second aspect is that such
teaching of weight is pedagogically preferable, since it is concrete and tangible. Operationally
defined weight is close to the naive concept of the heaviness of a body. We hypothesized that
instruction defining weight operationally will help to avoid confusion and misunderstanding
regarding weight and gravitation already in middle school. The paper describes the collected data
and analyzes its indicative meaning for weight instruction, trying to show the feasibility and
advantages of teaching and learning operationally defined weight.
Theoretical Background
The Concept of Weight in Science
Weight is among the oldest physical concepts known to humans long before science was
introduced. The rich history of this concept has been reviewed (e.g., Galili, 2001), and here we
highlight two major conceptual changes in this interesting story (see Figure 1). Both are relevant
for understanding the teaching of weight at school.
The concepts of weight, gravity, gravitation, and mass are seldom distinguished in public
knowledge, all being related to the heaviness of objects (Webster dictionary, 1972). This pre-
Newtonian understanding was revolutionized in the 17th century when Newton drew the
distinction between weight and inertial mass3 as accounting for different phenomena. Mass
became a concept to represent the features of a body related to its inertia, an intention to keep with
the particular state of motion. Newton separated mass from the force of gravitation—the
characteristic of mutual attraction of two material bodies, and invented the concept of
gravitation.4 He explained weight by gravitational force and equated these two concepts. This
step was revolutionary but preserved a problem. In fact, weight as a concept representing the
Gravitational force, Gravitational force

Gravity, Weight force
weight, mass Weight force
Inertial
Mass Inertial Mass
Newton Einstein 1916

Reichenbach 1927
1687
Figure 1. Flowchart of the conceptual change of meaning in the conceptual cluster of weight-gravitation throughout the
history of science (Galili, 2001, 2012).

heaviness of a body, is normally not equal to the gravitational force exerted on it. On the Earth’s
surface weight changes with latitude not only because of Earth’s non-spherical shape, but also
because of its spinning. Even at the Poles where the weight of a suspended object is equal to the
gravitational attraction to the Earth, it ignores the gravitation of other celestial objects.5 The
acceleration g of a free fall also depends on the geographical latitude and is tabulated for various
places. In effect, this adjustment reduces equation (1) to equation (2).
Things changed in the 20th century when physics incorporated accelerated frames of
reference (such as a rotating one). Inertial forces became legitimate. The equality of nature
between inertial and gravitational forces —the principle of equivalence—explained by the general
theory of relativity (Einstein, 1916/1923), implied indistinguishable contributions of gravitational
and inertial forces to the weighing results (the heaviness of objects). This progress inspired a new
conceptual change—a split between weight (gravity6) and the gravitational force (see Figure 1)
(King, 1962; Reichenbach, 1927/1958, p. 223; Taylor, 1974; Thompson & Taylor, 2008, p. 23).
Weight and gravitation became independent.7
The operational definition of weight fits the new epistemology of physics, which obliges any
physics concept to be defined by a theoretical (nominal) as well as an operational (epistemic)
definition (e.g., Bridgman, 1952; Frank, 1974; Hempel, 1966; Hecht, 2006; Margenau, 1950).
Nowadays, it is a common convention of physics. The operational definition of weight not only
dismisses the gravitational one, but points to the lack of physical meaning of such definitions as:
“The weight of a body is the total gravitational force exerted on the body by all other bodies in the
universe“ (Young & Friedman, 2014, p. 406).
Importantly, mentioning the measurement that may inform about the magnitude of the
considered concept, does not provide its operational definition, but rather presents instrumental
reference (Galili & Lehavi, 2003, 2006). Instead, the operational definition states that weight is the
result of (standard) weighing (e.g., Knight, 2013 p. 146).
The Concept of Weight in Education
Science educators advocated the essential need for operational definitions of concepts in
physics teaching (Arons, 1990; Karplus, 1969; Reif, 1995). However, the operational definition of
weight has had great difficulty in entering educational practice, as is evident in physics textbooks.
The distinction between gravitational force and weight was adopted in the mandatory curriculum
of Eastern Europe countries (Lopas, 2009) and the former USSR (Chaikin, 1963; Shanash &
Evenchick, 1985). The split among the textbooks of introductory physics in the US has already
been mentioned in the Introduction.8 The majority of English textbooks retain the gravitational
definition of weight and teachers require skillful argumentation to convince students that weighing
does not inform about weight. . . and weightlessness in a satellite is a mere illusion—“weightless-
ness“—which does not imply the absence of gravitation (Galili & Lehavi, 2003, 2006). Yet, one
may mention a slow shift of textbooks from the gravitational to the operational definition of weight
(e.g., Hewitt, 1992, pp.176, 179–180 versus Hewitt, 2002, pp.159, 160; Knight, 2004 pp.131–132
versus Knight, 2013, pp.146-147; Halliday & Resnik, 1988, p. 286 versus Halliday, Resnick, &
Walker, 2001, pp. 80–81). For years, physics teachers have continuously been debating the issue
of weight instruction (Barlett, 2010; Brown, 1999; Figueiredo, 2005; French, 1983, 1995; Galili,
1993, 1995, 2001; Galili & Lehavi, 2003; Hewitt, 2013; King, 1962; Iona, 1975, 1976, 1988,
1999; Morrison, 1999; Sharma et al., 2004; Stein & Galili, 2014; Taylor, 1974).
Weight in Students’ Knowledge
Like other concepts, weight and gravitation are often comprehended by students differently
from their scientific meaning (Reif & Larkin, 1991; Solomon, 1984). Researchers have explored
knowledge of weight and gravitation among students at all levels of instruction: school, college
and university. Whether or not recapitulation holds in learning science, one observes the
problems of understanding weight mirroring the conceptual changes in the history of
science. Indeed, there are two trends in research addressing students’ knowledge of weight
in accordance with the two major historical changes in Figure 1. The first trend investigates
mass–weight confusion of students (e.g., Gonen, 2008; Stamenkovsk & Zajkov, 2014).
Currently, however, this confusion is well recognized by teachers, researchers and textbooks
authors, and physics textbooks often address the misconceptions of this type. Our study
belongs to the second trend dealing with weight-gravitation confusion, which mirrors the
second conceptual change in Figure 1. The awareness of the weight-gravitation distinction
and corresponding conceptual framework of weight is lower in the Western educational
system and among educational researchers.9
Piaget (1972) ascertained that children develop a schema for weight already at the pre-
operational stage. As an anthropocentric schema it projects on all the later knowledge of an
individual, relating the object weight to the muscle effort of an attempt to manipulate it—to
support, carry, lift, and move it around (Galili & Bar, 1997). Between the ages of 5–9, children
relate “heaviness“ of bodies to the falling and “lightness“ to their floating. Between the ages of 9
and 13, students often use the notion of gravity to explain falling: “gravity acts just on heavy
objects” or “things fall because air is pushing them down” (Kavanagh & Sneider, 2007; Minstrell,
1982) and thus, they infer about “no weight” or “no gravity” on the Moon (e.g., Noce et al., 1988;
Ruggiero et al., 1985).
Galili and Bar (1997) emphasized that elementary school students did not spontaneously
invent gravitational force as a downward pull—the true invention of Newton. Investigating
children’s knowledge in K-6 grades, the authors detected two schemes. The first one stated that
“weight is the pressing force that some objects have (stones, sticks, etc.) and some do not (air, dust,
etc.).” Such classification directly corresponded to the sense of pressure exerted by the object on
the supporting hand. The second scheme was “weight is the amount of matter”—the bigger the
object is, the more weight it possesses and the harder it is to move.
Galili and Kaplan (1996); Gurel and Acar (2003); and Kucuk (2005) explored the pertinent
knowledge of high school and college students. Ruggiero, Cartelli, Dupre, and Vincentini (1985)
and Noce, Torosantucci, and Vicentini (1988) explored elementary and middle schools students’
views on weight and gravity after standard gravitational instruction of weight. They reported
confusion with regard to the following concepts: “no gravity“ on the Moon and the “force of
gravity“ emanating out of the center of the Earth. Palmer (2001) explored students of grade 6 and
grade 10 regarding “gravity“ close to the Earth’s surface and found their knowledge context-
dependent.
Gurel & Acar (2003) and Gonen (2008) reported on the weight-gravitation views among pre-
service teachers in Turkey, while Kruger, Summers, and Palacio (1990) investigated teachers in
the UK. Sharma, Millar, Smith, and Sefton (2004) elaborated on this knowledge among university
students in Australia, and Galili and Lehavi (2003, 2006) did the same addressing experienced in-
service teachers in Israel. Similar obscurant knowledge and confusion consistently emerged in all
the studies.
In their study, Galili and Kaplan (1996) reduced the variety of students’ claims to several
schemes of knowledge:
Only one weight concept is in use (no true and apparent weights as in instruction).
Weight/weight force is directly and unconditionally related to weighing results.
Weight of a body decreases with the distance to the sources of gravitation.
Weight can be changed by other forces or pressure (air, water, and earth).
Weight is created by the medium (air, water, and earth) and transferred by it.
Weight can be changed in motion.
Weight is an inherent and invariant quality of a body.
The authors attributed the failure of students to the misleading potential of equating weight
and gravitational force. This is because of the contradiction between the gravitational definition
and students’ intuition established in everyday experience. In contrast, Galili and Kaplan (1996)
Figueiredo (2005) and Stein and Galili (2014) determined the operational definition of weight to
be close to students’ intuition. One may relate this contradiction to the tension between concept
definition and concept image (Vinner, 1991). Stein and Galili (2014) reported that teaching middle
school students the operationally defined weight removed such contradiction and significantly
improved students’ abilities to account for various physical situations.
Other researchers considered the up-down direction, especially with regard to falling, which
touches on weight and gravitation. Nussbaum (1979, 1985) organized children’s ideas about
gravitation in mental models of world organization. He used the up-down concept as a tool to infer
about pertinent children’s knowledge. Vosniadou and Brewer (1987, 1992) showed similar
interest. They reported on the na€ve concept of up-down as a universal direction independent of the
observer’s location. This na€ve conception competes with the idea of gravity in the radial direction
to the center of the Earth. The ideas regarding Earth’s gravitation were inferred drawing on
students’ predictions of falling. The up-down concept became a powerful diagnostic tool for
probing understanding of gravity (e.g., Nussbaum, 1979, 1985; Sneider & Ohadi, 1998; Schur &
Galili, 2009; Schur, Galili, & Shapiro, 2009).
Instructional Approach of this Study

Our study tries to check the feasibility of changing the conceptual framework of teaching
operationally defined weight in middle school. For this, we combined several pedagogical
formats: a historical-phenomenological excurse (Galili, 2012), class demonstration of a falling
calibrated spring loaded with weight, and a Thinking Journey to unusual environments (Schur &
Galili, 2009; Schur et al., 2009; Stein & Galili, 2014).
The applied excurse introduced students to the discourse about natural phenomena, which led
scientists to the concepts of weight and gravitational attraction in their account of natural order.
This glimpse at the conceptual history placed the learners in the appropriate context of teaching
(e.g. Galili, 2012; Matthews, 1984, 2000; Monk & Osborne, 1997).
Thinking Journey (TJ)—a method of dialogical teaching through group discussion—is a
constructivist pedagogy applied in teaching astronomical concepts (Schur & Galili, 2009;
Schur et al., 2009). This kind of teaching increases students’ engagement in collaborative
discourse and argumentation as a means of enhancing conceptual understanding (Chin &
Osborne, 2010; Fraser et al., 2014; Osborne, 2010; Sampson & Blanchard, 2012;
Christodoulou & Osborne 2014). TJ draws on discussion around images (photos and video
clips) of physical situations representative of the concept under discussion. Thus, addressing
a certain environment, the teacher suggests the students analyze and discuss the aspects
relevant to the considered concept, its similar and different manifestations in various settings.
Importantly, TJ prefers to start with an unfamiliar, non-experienced environment, such as the
Moon. There, the considered concept appears in a new form and creates the variation and
“space of learning“ required for learning (Marton, Runesson, & Tsui, 2004). The method
actively uses comparison (Scheker & Niedderer, 1996; Schwartz et al., 2011). The teacher
performs mediation towards construction of a new knowledge. Such guided discussion is
sensitive to the learners’ immediate needs as they emerge in the discussion.
Our TJ pedagogy targeted several concepts: up-down, gravitational force and attraction,
weight, and falling. The discussion usually began by asking “what do we see in the pictures?“ and
proceeded towards a conceptual analysis triggered by “what is the significance of. . . [this or that
detail of the picture]?“ It eventually arrives at the constructed image of the target concept. The
teacher leads the students to recognize the characteristic features of the considered concept.
Variation and comparison underpin the methodology of TJ pedagogy.
TJ stimulates students’ engagement with the content. They asked questions, trying to make
sense of and account for the novel situations. TJ-based teaching activates such cognitive functions
as projection of relations, seeking information and hypothetical argumentation, causing effective
learning by students of varying abilities (Feuerstein et al., 1991). TJ-based teaching makes the
learning process transparent for the teacher and researcher.
Structuring Students’ Knowledge

Attempts to reveal the details of the cognitive transformation underlying the process of
learning led to illustrative representation and organization of students’ knowledge. Minstrell
(1992) described students’ knowledge in terms of ”facets of knowledge,” explanatory
patterns by which students make sense, account and treat a particular physical situation.
Facets-of-knowledge reflect children’s beliefs, their conceptual and operational ideas. Galili
and Lavrik (1998), Galili and Hazan (2000a, b) used two levels of knowledge organization to
account for and represent students’ conceptions in various domains (such as light and
vision). Facets-of-knowledge establish context-dependent level of this structure, are concrete
claims, close in form to the original use by students. Schemes-of-knowledge are more
generalized, less context-dependent patterns of reasoning. They are the result of the analysis
of the common origin of several facets. It is, then, possible to structure students’ knowledge
in terms of clusters of facets-of-knowledge around certain scheme: a scheme with affiliated
facets, sharing a common idea of an explanatory nature. The two-level hierarchical structure
appeared useful in representing students’ knowledge. We may illustrate such organization
regarding the up-down direction as emerged in the analysis of students’ responses in this
study (see Figure 2).
Schemes-of-knowledge could be compared with Piaget’s schemata (1972) and the p-prims of
diSessa (1993). Like those, the schemes present cognitive constructs of an explanatory nature
connecting several factors in a cause-effect relationship. However, unlike schemata and p-prims,
which are spontaneous, the schemes may result not only from intuition, but also be induced by
formal instruction. Scheme-facets structure portraits students’ knowledge and indicates the
changes occurring due to the particular instruction.
Research Questions
Drawing on several perspectives of the background (disciplinary, historical, cognitive, and
curricular) we converged on a set of research questions. Retaining the intention to investigate
students’ learning about weight within a new conceptual framework, we decided to teach weight
in a conceptual alliance with gravitational force and up-down direction. Accordingly, we posed
the first research question:
1. How do middle school students conceptualize up-down direction, weight, and

gravitation prior to instruction, and how do they conceptualize these concepts and their
interrelation by the end of the new instruction?

Figure 2. Schematic representation of the construction of a scheme-facets structure of students’ knowledge as resulting
from data interpretation. A fragment of the knowledge of up-down concept is considered.
Based on the accumulated knowledge we could confront the curricular questions:
1. Which key characteristics of the new instruction (conceptual framework of weight and
pedagogical method) may make the teaching of this conceptual domain effective?
2. To what extent it is feasible to guide students in middle school toward knowledge
construction of weight and gravitation, based on the operationally defined weight
through a short intervention?
Our hypothesis was that the instruction adopting a new conceptual framework, which defines
weight operationally, would facilitate students’ avoidance of confusion and misunderstanding
regarding the concepts of weight and gravitation already in middle school.
Research Methodology
The research questions determined the nature of our study as an experimental teaching of
constructivist pedagogy followed up by a qualitative research account with appropriate
methodology (e.g., Flick, 2010; Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Shkedi, 2003).
Research Sample
The experimental teaching was administered in an urban public school in Israel. We
addressed a small group of students in the 7th grade (first year of middle school), even before the
subject of weight is normally learned (grade 9). The kind of research and the goals of the
experiment excluded a control group. The sample was comprised of 14 randomly chosen students
(seven girls and seven boys) with average mathematical abilities as determined in school
assessment. We divided the sample into two groups, in order to increase the resolution of the data
and their reliability for repeating the procedure.
Instruction
One of us provided one 90-minute session per week over a five-week period. The structure of
the instruction was as follows:
1. The first session aimed to reveal students’ initial knowledge. During the first 20-25
minutes, the students completed a questionnaire regarding the concepts of up-down
direction on Earth, on the Moon, in an airplane, and in an orbiting spaceship. They drew
sketches to illustrate their answers. Following this, the students were introduced to a
discussion of the lunar environment, triggered by relevant pictures from Apollo
missions. This setting stimulated questions regarding weight and gravitation, orienting
the students to the instruction to come.
2. The second session introduced students to the realm of gravitational and weight
phenomena: the Earth-Moon system, the craters created in collisions with meteorites,
ocean tides, Saturn rings, and more. The teacher addressed the notion of up-down in
relation to the falling of objects and their pressure on support as illustrated by the
footprints of astronauts in the discussed photos.
3. In the third session, the teacher briefly presented the evolution of views on cosmic
organization: Ptolemy’s geocentric, Brahe’s hybrid, Copernicus’ heliocentric, and
Kepler’s elliptic sun-planets systems. The teaching included Newton’s thought
experiment of the cannon shell launched several times at increasing speeds and falling to
the ground at increasing distances. Eventually, at a sufficiently high launch velocity, it
became a satellite of the Earth combining falling with straightforward propagation in a
circular motion. The video clip of Galileo’s experiment of the falling of feather and
hammer was shown and discussed both for regular and lunar environments. The students
were guided to appreciate the force of attraction between the planets and the sun, relating
that to the falling of objects toward celestial bodies and pressing the ground preventing
falling. Newton’s explanation of weight, was introduced. However, gravitation was not
equated to weight, but was considered as the cause of weight. Newton’s law of
gravitational attraction was introduced and illustrated.10
4. The fourth session focused on the phenomenon of weightlessness in an orbiting station.
The teacher demonstrated a calibrated spring scale loaded with an object. Then, she let
the scale fall several times asking students to recognize the zero scale reading during the
fall. Later on, group discussion was encouraged around the pictures and video clips,
showing astronauts inside and outside an orbiting spaceship. Pictures illustrated the life
of astronauts and their activities in the state of weightlessness. Students received
worksheets with five open-ended questions as an individual home assignment .
5. In the fifth session, the teacher initiated a discussion on weight with relation to weighing
procedures on the Earth’s surface, on the Moon, and in a satellite. This led to the
construction of a weight definition as object heaviness measured by the force it exerts on
the support. Weight was differed from the gravitational force—the force of attractive
interaction between objects which may cause weight or falling (orbiting).
Data Collection
The data were collected during the first, fourth, and fifth sessions using several tools. In the
first session, students were asked to draw sketches and indicate the up-down direction for a person
at different locations on the ground, on the Moon, aboard an airplane, and inside an orbiting
satellite. As mentioned above, the knowledge of up-down direction informed us about students’
understanding of gravitation. The class discussion during the TJ teaching was videotaped and later
transcribed; questionnaire-drawings were analyzed. Together with the discussion protocols they
informed us about students’ pertinent initial knowledge. During the second and third sessions, the
students were introduced to the subject of weight-gravitation from a historical and phenomenolog-
ical perspective, and no data were collected.
The discussions of the TJ-based teaching during the fourth and fifth sessions were videotaped
and transcribed. At the end of the fourth session, students received individual home assignments,
which included five qualitative open-ended questions—a suitable format for revealing students’
conceptions. The questions were the following:
1. In your opinion, does gravitational force act in vacuum? Explain your answer.
2. Indicate the “down“ direction for the person standing in different locations on the Earth’s
surface and on the Moon.
3. Is there a particular “down“ direction in an orbiting spaceship? Explain your answer.
4. What do you think about the weight of a body in an orbiting spaceship? Explain your
answer.
5. In your opinion, what is the relationship between the gravitational force acting on us and
our weight? Explain your answer.
We may mention that the students knew that their answers prepared them for the next session
and were not going to be graded. The whole activity was extracurricular, not a subject for any
personal evaluation. The home assignment was given in the middle of the constructive class
discussion, between the fourth and the fifth lessons, making it a part of a continuous learning
process. We wanted the students to keep thinking on the contents under the discussion also at home
and be ready to explain and defend their answers in the following class discussion. Analysis of the
home-assignments informed us about the knowledge consolidated by each of the students before
the final discussion on the definition of weight in the final session.11
All these data—videotaped discussions together with the home-assignment—were processed
to inform how the students, as a teacher-guided group, made sense of various situations and
eventually arrived at the operationally defined concept of weight. Assessment of the group
knowledge included observations as an important resource. This is because the dynamics of
knowledge development in a discussion is often expressed verbally by a certain individual but not
repeated by discussants showing their agreement but rather by alternative, behavioristic manner
(exclamations, nodding, and facial expressions, etc.).
Data Analysis
Our focus was on the change in students’ knowledge. Several researchers have demonstrated
the validity of shared knowledge, the “group knowledge“, especially when investigated in small
groups of learners (e.g., diSessa, Hammer, Sherin, & Kolpakowski, 1991; Hershkowitz, Hadas,
Dreyfus, & Schwarz, 2007; Tiberghien et al., 2014; Vidakovic & Martin, 2004; Voigt, 1995).
Although students’ contributions were not equal, each of them shared the knowledge growth.
Voigt (1995, p.183) emphasized: “Through their discussion, the students and teacher constituted
an explanation that perhaps neither would produce individually. They arrived at knowledge taken
as shared.“ The protocols of the sessions, students’ drawings and their explanatory notes, answers
to the questionnaire (session 1) and home-assignment (after session 4) were analyzed qualitatively
and considered in complementary fashion. Drawing on such triangulation, we produced a
structure, which enabled us to detect the dynamics manifested verbally, in written answers and
drawings.
Our analysis mirrored developing grounded theory (e.g., Flick, 2010 p. 428, Corbin &
Strauss, 1990; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) for a science context with categorization in terms of facets
and schemes. The latter were elicited in the inductive constructive analysis of the data. Initially,
the data are categorized in general categories. Subsequently, facets-of-knowledge were elicited
from students’ responses in all our data resources: questionnaires, drawings and protocols of class
discussions. Analysis of facets enabled us to propose more general patterns—schemes-of-
knowledge (see Figure 2). The following took place:
(a) Firstly, we segmented the protocols and home assignments for analysis, indicating the
areas where students’ conceptions were expressed. Such fragments included arguments
and claims of an explanatory nature relating the pertinent entities in a cause-effect
relationship.
(b) Secondly, we explored each identified segment regarding the specific ideas
expressed. For example, lines 40, 45 in the protocol of the 4th Session [designated
as S4–40, 45]: There is no force coming from the [falling] box; the box doesn’t
apply any force on the spring in a free fall! We reduced similar quotes to certain
facets of knowledge. Each facet represented a pattern of reasoning applied by the
students to account for the particular situation. In the example mentioned, it was
the facet: In a free fall, no force comes from the object. This facet preserved a
form of students’ expression.
(c) We then reduced the accumulated facets to a few schemes of knowledge, each
representing a certain explanatory idea shared by the affiliated facets (see Tables 8–11).
Validation of this three-step analysis draws on the “internal dimensions“ (Chi, 1997) of
all knowledge statements in a variety of the sources. To achieve reliability of our elicitation,
we consulted with two other physics teachers from the same school and drew on their
consensus.
The established scheme-facets structure pictured students’ knowledge of the considered
concept: several clusters of schemes with affiliated facets. For example, the cluster of the
scheme “Gravitation causes falling of things“ included facets (1) “There is gravitation on
the Moon as things fall there“, (2) “There is no gravitation in the satellite since objects float
(do not fall) there“, (3) “When moving round the Earth, a satellite continuously falls and
therefore gravitational force acts on it“, (4) “There is no gravitation on the Moon and things
will fly there“. The scheme-facet structure was established regardless of the scientific
correctness of the claims. Once the schemes were produced, facets were reduced to a few
clusters. We pictured students’ knowledge at the beginning and by the end of the instruction.
Their comparison allowed inferences regarding the effectiveness of the instruction and
knowledge maturation. Furthermore, drawing on the scheme-facets structures, we produced
concept maps which visualized the internal conceptual relationship and the impact of the
instruction—not obvious in textual form (Novak & Canas, 2006).
Producing the concept maps included: a) identifying the main concepts of interest: up-down
direction, falling, weight and gravitational force; b) selecting the schemes that contained the
considered concepts; c) making appropriate connections among schemes and facets. The obtained
web portrayed the investigated aspects of students’ conceptual knowledge.
Finally, observation of the videotaped sessions of the instruction served as an additional
resource of various features of knowledge mediation, students’ views and their engagement.
In the following, we will present our assessment in down-top manner: classification of the
data from the resources first without their immediate interpretations, followed by interpretation in

terms of scheme-facets organization. Finally, we present concept maps allowing holistic

perspective, a broader understanding of findings and making inferences.
Results—First Stage of Data Analysis
Students’ Drawings (Session 1)
As mentioned, students were asked to indicate the up-down direction for a person in several
locations: on the Earth’s surface, on the Moon, on board an airplane, and inside an orbiting
satellite. They drew sketches and included explanatory notes. All the students depicted the Earth
and the Moon as spherical bodies whereas regarding up-down they split into six groups Each
student could contribute to more than one (see Figure 3 and Table 1).
In all the drawings, the Moon was placed in the upper area of the page. Two larger classes of
up-down conceptions could be labeled as absolute (see Table 1, Categories 1, 2) and local
(Categories 3–6). Within the absolute class, this direction was unique along the Earth-Moon axis
(see Figure 3a) or determined by the page (see Figure 3b). The local class included up-down
direction determined by body orientation, “floor“ or “ceiling“ were marked on the sketch
(Category 3, see Figure 3c). In some figures, the up-down direction was uncertain (Category 4) or
determined by movement (Category 5, see Figure 3d). Although about a half drew the up-down
axis in the radial direction from the Earth and the Moon (Category 6, see Figure 3e), only one
sketch used arrows (see Figure 3f).
Our data could only partially be compared with previous researchers since they checked the
understanding of the up-down direction only for the on-ground observer (Nussbaum, 1979, 1985).
Nussbaum identified five stages of development in this regard. In our data, only the student who
drew radial arrows fit the fifth stage of that scale. The remaining 13 fit the third and fourth stages,
meaning that the students conceived the Earth and the Moon as spherical bodies in space, but did
not necessarily perceive the scientific up-down as determined by gravity.12 Within the third stage,
the up-down direction is unique for all observers (i.e., regardless of observer location)—a clearly
erroneous conception.
Classroom Discussion (Session 1)
The pictures of astronauts on the Moon caused high engagement and lively discussion.
Students were excited, exchanged comments and asked questions. Confronted with an unfamiliar
situation, they actively discussed their ideas, revealing to us their understanding. It started from
considering the up-down and eventually arrived at falling objects and even falling off the Moon.
Students compared Earth with the Moon and expressed doubts regarding gravity there:13 On the
Moon – there is no gravity, so, if they [astronauts] walk to the edge, will they fall?...[S1-1] On
Earth we can stand at both poles because there is a force of attraction, but on the Moon there is no
attraction force . . . because there is no atmosphere. I think that atmosphere causes the attraction
force. [S1-2] On Earth, there is a strong force of attraction, so we stay on the ground, but on the
Moon the force is very weak. . .[S1-3]
All the students but two said that the attraction force to the Moon was weak (“weak magnet”),
weak gravity, and so things behave differently: The Moon’s attraction force can’t hold a body that
weighs a ton, but it can hold small things like people [S1-4]; The Moon’s attraction force is like a
weak magnet. If you put a nail on a weak magnet, the nail will not fall! That’s how it holds the
astronauts. [S1-5] The astronaut needs the ladder so he can reach the ground faster and not waste
time floating – because the attraction force is weak. . .[S1-6] Bodies have weight on the Moon; you
can see the astronauts walking. . .things without weight float! [S1-7]; There is a weak attraction
force on the Moon; you can see how easily they jump there. Maybe gravity holds only what is

Figure 3. Representative drawings of students regarding up-down direction prior to the instruction. (a, b) Absolute up-
down. (c-f) The local up-down. Black and accurate arrows were added to represent students’ notions written in Hebrew.
standing on the Moon, not anything in the air... that is off the ground, because there is no air [S1-
8]; They need to stick the flag into the ground, otherwise it would fly away, because it is not heavy
enough and the attraction force is too weak! [S1-9].
Students related weight, heaviness, and attraction force: Perhaps the astronauts have weights
in their suits and special equipment, so that the attraction force can hold them. [S1-10] The truck
stays on Earth because it’s heavy and the attraction force makes it harder to move it away [S1-11].
The up-down direction was related to standing on the ground or individual perception. Some
negated such a direction “in space“ and others stated its dependence on location on the Earth
globe: Down is the ground because one can see the astronauts standing on the ground, and up is
Table 1
Distribution of students’ drawings and answers regarding the up-down direction
Location
## Category Earth Moon Air-plane Space-ship
1 Direction to the Moon means up Direction to the 3 3 3 4
Earth means down
2 Up-down is determined by picture orientation 2 3 2 4
3 Up-down is determined by parts of the considered 0 0 1 3
body
4 Random direction 2 1 2 2
5 Up-down is determined by the direction of a 1 0 1 4
body’s motion
6 Radial direction 7 7 6 0
the opposite direction, space [S1-12]; Up-down is actually where you look. That is how we know
this direction [S1-13]; There is up and down, but it depends! Each person has his own one. His
“down“ is the ground, his “up“ is the space, and the sides are the sides [S1-14]; Up-down depends
on Moon’s position in the course of the earth’s rotation [S1-15]; I think there is no up and down in
space. You see that there is no atmosphere [S1-16]; There is no up and down... It depends! Even on
the earth, there is no single up-down, because the globe is spherical and all directions are equal
[S1-17].
Although the students talked about attraction to the Moon, they were surprised to see
astronauts active there almost like on Earth (walking, riding the vehicle, and jumping). The
students welcomed the comparison with a weak magnet, which allowed bodies on the Moon to
float a little. They, however, split as to whether the body must be heavy or light for the attraction to
hold it. Most of the students related the up-down notion in relation to standing astronauts but none
related between up-down and attraction. Three students considered up-down to be universal
direction, that is, remaining the same everywhere.
Classroom Discourse (Session 4)
During this session, the students observed video clips and photographs of astronauts in an
orbiting spaceship. Floating astronauts and their activities in the state of weightlessness caused a
lot of surprise, curiosity and excitement. Students discussed the special features of living “in
space.” The teacher guided the discussion towards considering the up-down direction for the
astronauts. The vivid discussion expanded on weight, gravitational force and their possible
relationship. Here is a representative segment from that discussion.
Teacher: What is unusual in this video? [S4-1]

Aviv: Everything is floating. . . the water doesn’t spill. . . [S4-2]
Michal: It’s like jelly. . .very strange... Like a ball... Cool! I’d like to be there too! [S4-3]
Aviv: How can one take a room and isolate it from the air? [S4-4]
Teacher: Why do you say this? What will happen without air? [S4-5]
Yael: Is it possible?... to isolate a room from gravitational force? [S4-6]
Teacher: What do you mean?... [S4-7]
Aviv: Ahh, a room without gravity force! That’s what I meant. . .. [S4-8]
Teacher: Does the air, or lack of air, have any influence on gravitation? [S4-9]
Students: No, No!... We saw it working on the Moon. . . [S4-10]

Here, Aviv’s first exclamation [S4-4] indicated relating weight to the presence of air. He
explained to himself the observed floating of objects by their “isolation“ from gravitation [S4-8].
However, other students rejected such reasoning arguing via the pictures of lunar environment
[S4-10]. The students related floating to the absence of gravitational force.
Addressing a photograph of astronauts in the space station, the teacher asked how one may
determine up-down there. Students tried to relate to the environment and body orientation: we can
tell according to the devices and the position of the computer there! [S4-14] His legs [pointing to
one astronaut], and his head [pointing to another]. . . [S4-15, 18, 19] Those attempts failed when
Aviv argued: it doesn’t make sense that for one man this direction will be “down“ and for the other,
next to him, “down“ will be opposite! [S4-21]
The students stated the lack of up-down direction in the spaceship [S4-22-25]. Importantly,
the students were confused regarding the gravitational force inside the orbiting spaceship [S4-6,
8]. For example, Matan wondered: Ahha. . .ok... no “up“ and “down“... but how can one make a
place isolated from gravitational force? [S4-26]
Students were puzzled by the teacher’s question: Does Earth exert gravitational force on the
objects inside the spaceship? [S4-27-28] Falling was related by them to gravitational force, and
floating of objects seemingly indicated the lack of it. The climax of the debate was Aviv’s claim:
But it doesn’t make any sense! One can’t take the gravitational force out of the spaceship!! That
is. . . in Newton’s law, the gravitational force depends on . . .so it doesn’t make sense that there is
no gravitational force . . . gravitational force must be there! [S4-29]
The ensuing discussion addressed weight, gravitational force and mass in falling. The
teacher introduced weighing by a calibrated scale. She asked the students to carefully
observe the spring with a box and dropped them. Students were surprised that during the
falling the spring shrank as if not loaded. . . [S4-38] The confusion was obvious when
students tried to figure out why was the spring stretched before, and now – it isn’t? Idan
explained the shrunken spring by no gravitational force . . . [S4-38]. Other students argued
by no force coming from the box [S4-40] or by the spring and the box become one body, and
the same force acts on them both! [S4-41]. Roy explained: they will fall together...so the box
doesn’t apply any force on the spring in free fall! [S4-45]
Michal wondered if in such case there was no weight and Idan opposed this idea: No! It [the
box] has weight! But it does not express itself during the fall! [S4-48] Here, Idan seemingly
referred to weight as an inherent faculty, not manifesting itself in falling. Students related
weightlessness to falling: They do not weigh anything, it’s free fall! [S4-50]. They regarded the
satellite as falling and even compared it to the cannon shell in Newton’s thought experiment they
had learned about in the third session [S4-52].
These quotes illustrate dialogic teaching towards the operational definition of force (weight,
in particular), encouraging search for evidence (the stretched spring) of the acting force. Instead of
speculating, the teacher asked students to draw on their observations. The dialogue revealed the
importance of falling and recognition of weightlessness in presence of gravitational force, thus
discerning it from weight. This is especially pronounced in the fragment of the discussion
presented in Table 7.
Home Assignments
Tables 2–5 show distribution of the answers in the home assignment.
In their answers to question 1, 12 students stated that the gravitational force acted in vacuum
(see Table 2). They argued via the pictures and clips from the Apollo expeditions. In particular, the
students observed that objects fell to the lunar ground, footprints on the lunar dust due the pressure
of objects, astronauts standing and walking there, similar to the on Earth environment. One student
Table 2
Distribution of the answers to question 1 of the home assignment (In your opinion, does gravitational
force act in vacuum?)
Quote # Answer Frequency

A1-1* No! In vacuum we don’t have weight. 1
A1-2 Yes, in space, we float in a vacuum, but we do not fall, 1
we only stay in our position, even though Earth exerts force.
A1-3 Yes, vacuum is nothing! And gravitational force exists, 1
because it’s a fact that objects do fall in a vacuum.
A1-4 Yes, I saw in the video that the hammer and feather were falling 1
on the moon, and there is a vacuum there.
A1-5 Yes, there is a vacuum on the moon, and there is 6
gravitational force there.
A1-6 Yes! There is no relation between gravitational force and vacuum 3
A1-7 Yes, the air just resists the gravitational force. When 1
there is no air – there is no resistance! Therefore,
gravitational force is more powerful in a vacuum!
* A1-1 designates type 1 answer to the assignment question 1.
stated that air impeded gravitation and therefore, in a vacuum (“emptiness“, in Hebrew)
gravitation should act even more strongly [A1-7]. However, another student stated that gravitation
“exists” in vacuum but does not affect objects there [A1-2]. Only one student stated that in a
vacuum objects were weightless [A1-1].
In their answers regarding up-down on the Earth and on the Moon, 13 students marked the
“down“ direction by arrows to the center of the Earth and the Moon respectively (radial directions)
(see Figure 4a, 4b, Table 3). One student added that gravitational force determined the “down“
direction and that was the direction of falling [A2-2].
The students found the question about up-down in a coasting spaceship rather complex: three
of them did not answer and the rest were split in answers and reasoning (see Table 4). Six students
negated the existence of the down direction there. Four of them did not explain beyond: “No
direction in space“, “Orbit has no up, it is circular“ and “Floor is down as known after landing“.
Two students reasoned the absence of the “down“ direction by weak or missing gravitation. The
other five stated the down direction towards the Earth’s center, the direction of the gravitational
pull or falling. In these answers, the perspective was that of the person on the Earth observing the
Figure 4. Representative drawings indicating “down“ direction (question 2): (a) Arrows point to the center of the Earth
and the Moon; (b) Arrows show radial directions relative to the Earth noted in words and the Moon is ignored.

Table 3
Distribution of the answers to question 2 of the home assignment (Indicate the “down“ direction for the
person standing in different locations on the Earth’s surface and on the Moon)

A2-1* “Down“ is the direction to the center [of the Earth or the Moon]. 13
(Fig. 4a, Arrows and labels indicated this direction)
A2-2 The parameter that determines the “down“ direction is gravitational force. 1
On Earth, “down“ is always the direction to the ground. This is the direction of
falling. The sky is in the “up“ direction (Fig. 4b, Arrows and labels
indicated this direction on Earth)
*A2-1 designates type 1 answer to the assignment question 2.
orbiting spaceship, whereas the six “no down“ answers apparently employed the perspective of
the astronaut inside the cabin.
Considering weight in a coasting spaceship (question 4), students unanimously stated that the
bodies were weightless (see Table 5). However, they split in their explanations. Nine did not
explain; three students reasoned via falling; and two students explained weightlessness via the
absence of gravitational force.
Considering the weight–gravitational force relationship (question 5), two students stated that
weight was similar to gravitational force (see Table 6). Five used negative response: no
gravitational force–no weight; and four students stated the proportional relation of the two.
Another two students described weight as the force exerted by us on the Earth and one mentioned
that weight corresponded to the level of resistance to the gravitational force but did not explain. In
the answers of seven students one may recognize reference to empirical evidence. Students
mentioned weighing or the perceived heaviness of a body, quite similar to Newton’s suggestion in
his Principia to measure weight by the force that prevents falling of the object held (Newton,
1729/1974, pp. 4-5): “. . .its weight; and it is always known by the quantity of an equal and
contrary force just sufficient to hinder the descent of the body”.
Table 4
Distribution of the answers to question 3 of the home assignment (Is there certain “down“ direction in an
orbiting spaceship?)

A3-1* No! There are no directions in space. 2
A3-2 No, because the spaceship orbits the earth in a circular track, and there 1
is no “up“ or “down“ in a circle.
A3-3 Yes, the astronauts in the spaceship know where the floor is when 1
they land.
A3-4 No, because the gravitational force is very weak or does not even 1
exist there.
A3-5 No, because there is no gravitational force in the spaceship, and the 1
“down“ direction is the direction of the gravitational force or
falling – to the earth’s center.
A3-6 Yes, the earth’s center is in the “down“ direction. That is where the 3
gravitational force pulls the spaceship.
A3-7 Yes, the direction of its [spaceship] falling – is the “down“ direction. 2

Table 5
Distribution of the answers to question 4 of the home assignment (What do you think about weight of a
body in an orbiting spaceship?)

A4-1* Bodies in a spaceship have no weight. 7
A4-2 There is weightlessness in the spaceship. 2
A4-3 In a spaceship, in a free-fall state, bodies have no weight. 2
A4-4 The spaceship orbits the earth because Earth pulls it, but the bodies inside 1
the spaceship are floating, because they have no weight, because
they are in free-fall.
A4-5 Bodies in space have no weight because there is no gravitational 2
force there.
This, however, was not used by Newton as an operational definition of weight. Similarly act
those physics textbooks pointing to weighing but not defining weight via this procedure.
Classroom Discourse (Session 5)
The fifth and final session included a comparative summary addressing several contexts: on
the Earth, on the Moon and in falling. The activity encouraged students’ construction of a weight
definition based on multiple contexts. The teacher’s questions of “What is weight?“ and “What is
gravitational force?“ renewed a vivid debate in class.
Table 7 includes a segment illustrating the apex of the discussion: guided by the
teacher, the students defined weight, drawing on their experience and developing
understanding. The discussion started with identifying weight with gravitational force
[S5-2], but there was already a sufficient basis to apply another perspective drawing on clear
inferential logic [S5-4, S5-5]. Showing the new understanding, Eden distinguished between
weight and gravitational force [S5-5]. Drawing on the satellite environment, Dina and Maty
[S5-7, S5-8] made a breakthrough when they suggested weight as a pressing force naturally
exerted by an object on its support. That was, they believed, the feature that characterized
and determined the weight of an object – an invention of the operational definition of
weight.
Table 6
Distribution of the answers to question 5 of the home assignment (In your opinion, what is the relationship
between the gravitational force acting on us and our weight?)

A5-1* Our weight is a kind of force, just like gravitational force. 1
A5-2 [Weight is] the heaviness we feel – this is gravitational force. 1
A5-3 If not for gravitational force, we would not have any weight. 3
A5-4 Weight depends on the gravitational force. If there is a gravitational 2
force, then there is weight.
A5-5 The more powerful the gravitational force is– the more we will weigh, 4
and the smaller it is, the less we will weigh.
A5-6 The force of gravity that we exert on Earth – this is in fact what our weight is. 2
A5-7 Weight is the level of our resistance to gravitational force. 1

Table 7
Segment from the classroom discussion about the meaning of weight (Session 5)
Teacher: After our discussions, could you say what you think weight is? S5-1*
Guy: It’s the level of attraction by the gravitational force. S5-2
Teacher: OK, and how does your definition match with what you saw S5-3
in a spaceship?
Lorena: According to what Guy said, a body should have weight in a S5-4
spaceship. . .if the gravitational force acts there. . .
Eden: So, in my opinion, this proves that weight is not the gravitational S5-5
force!! Weight is a force exerted on a body, but it is not
gravitational force...
. . .. . .
Teacher: OK, from what you have said, I understand that weight is a S5-6
kind of force, but not the same as gravitational force, right?
Dina: Yes, it’s a force that acts on something. . . S5-7
Maty: Let me say, if we put a box on someone, then it’s a weight falling S5-8
on him, and also a force applied on him!
Guy: Weight is a force created because of the gravitational force! S5-9
Oren: Ahha... if we built a very high tower reaching out into space, S5-10
there would be weight there!
Teacher: Excellent! Let’s take Oren’s example. Suppose we have a tower, S5-11
a very tall one, so that its highest floor is beyond the atmosphere,
at the same height satellites orbit the Earth. Imagine a man standing
there on the tower, and an astronaut in the spaceship, passing by at
the same height. Does the man on the tower have weight?
Lorena: Yes, of course! S5-12
Oren: He will definitely have weight! S5-13
Teacher: And what about the astronaut in the orbiting spaceship? S5-14
Students: No! S5-15
Teacher: Well, but regarding gravitational force, they both are at the same height... S5-16
Eden: But the man exerts force [on the weight-scale] and the astronaut doesn’t! S5-17
Dina: Ahha! To act by force on another body! The pressure exerted by a S5-18
body on another body – that is weight!!
* S5-1 designates line 1 in the protocol of Session 5.
Another useful perspective was suggested by Oren [S5-10] who compared the weight
perception of a person standing on an imaginary high tower with that of an astronaut in a satellite
coasting at the same height. It was surprising that a 7th-grade student reproduced the question
from the test of another study (Galili & Kaplan, 1996). The idea was used by the teacher [S5-11] to
stimulate the ultimate separation between gravitational force and weight. Other students shared
this understanding of weight as the force exerted by an object on the support and measured in
weighing. The discussion and continuous encouraging students to review their experience in the
previous lessons converged to eliciting of the essential feature of weight—to be measured by
weighing, the operational definition [S5-18].
Teaching Observations
The recorded sessions allowed further evidence of the ongoing learning and details of
learning. For example, the students applauded and asked to repeat the clip of feather and hammer
falling together on the Moon. Excitement and engagement were evident. The whole group was
involved even if not everyone spoke with equal frequency. Students expressed their agreement or
disagreement with a certain idea by non-verbal means such as nodding, exclamations, gesturing,
smiling, etc. This was especially important as our means to follow the group knowledge dynamics.
Our observations recognized the details of teaching navigation encouraging students’ deeper
analysis and knowledge construction.
Each picture triggered a new discussion beginning with observational remarks and gradually
becoming more abstract. Eventually, the students accumulated sufficient experience to discern the
essential feature of weight as a concept. The teacher, who had taught the topic of weight-
gravitation more than once, mentioned the unusual and non-declining enthusiasm of the students
who were fully engaged throughout all the sessions.
The instructor, sensitive to students’ own views and ideas, mediated the scientific knowledge
rather than lectured it. Our observation identified three stages of such mediation.
(a) In the initial stage, the teacher mainly encouraged students to express their
thoughts and views with respect to the subject matter. Students drew sketches, and
the teacher asked questions about the phenomena as viewed in photos. The activity
was diagnostic, revealing difficulties and prior conceptions. The phenomenological
and historical introduction apparently created learning space for the considered
concepts.
(b) In the middle stage, the teacher introduced specific physical situations in which the
concepts displayed their characteristics which varied in the different settings. After the
demonstration of the falling scale, the concept of falling was mentioned more
frequently by the students.
(c) In the final stage, the teacher encouraged students to render a summative
comparative analysis with respect to weight. Eventually, the students arrived at the
operational definition of weight along with criticism of equating weight with
gravitational force.
Results—Second Stage of Data Analysis

The second stage of the data analysis focused on structuring the pertinent students’
knowledge in terms of scheme-facets drawing on the initial analysis. This structure testified to
students’ progression. As a numerical indication, we evaluated the appearance of schemes by
ascribing them frequencies as shown in the questionnaires and drawings, equally representing all
participants. Yet, we did not calculate the frequencies of students’ sporadic comments in the
discussions. They were, however, indicative, in addition to the more systematic responses. When
calculated, the frequency of each scheme was obtained by summing up its presence among the
students.
Students’ Knowledge of Up-Down Direction

We identified four schemes of up-down prior to the instruction (see Table 8). The
initial knowledge showed no connection to either gravitation or weight. A single student
showed the scientifically correct direction as a radial of the Earth’s globe (UP-1). Scheme
UP-2 stated up-down as determined by the observer’s orientation, UP-3–as a universal
direction (regardless of any observer), and in UP-4 up-down was uncertain. One may
mention that Facets UP-1b and UP-2a—“down is to the ground“—are not simply
distinguished. Therefore, this facet was related to two schemes, with UP-1 representing a
correct statement.
The instruction considerably enriched students’ knowledge (see Table 9), and a wider
spectrum of facets addressed the situations discussed in the class. The schemes of uncertain and
universal conceptions disappeared, whereas Scheme UE-1 stating down direction in the direction
Table 8
Structure of students’ knowledge regarding up-down direction prior to the instruction
Schemes of Knowledge Facets of Knowledge

UP-1. Down is the direction to the a. Radial arrows from the Earth (or Moon) center indicate up-
center (1*)/ground (7) down direction [Fig. 3f] (1)
of the astronomical body (Earth, b. Each person has his own up-down: his down is to the ground
Moon), and up is the and his up is in the opposite direction, into space [S1-12-14;
opposite direction Fig. 3e]
UP-2. Body orientation determines a. Each person has his personal up-down direction. Up-down is
up-down direction (7) determined by a standing observer [S1-13, 14].
b. Direction to the floor is down (also in a spaceship). The
opposite direction is up [Fig. 3c].
UP-3. Up and down directions are a. Up-down direction relates between the Moon (up) and the
universal/absolute (4) Earth (down) [Fig. 3a; Tab. 1, category 1].
b. The Earth-Moon system determines the axis, which is the
up-down direction [S1-15].
UP-4. Up and down directions are a. Up-down direction is determined by the orientation of the
arbitrary/uncertain (4) particular picture in use [Fig. 3b; Tab. 1, category 2]
b. Up-down is actually where you look or move (observer
dependent)[S1-13, Fig. 3d ; Tab. 1, category 5].
c. There is no single [universal] up-down because the Earth is
spherical and all directions are equal [S1-17; Tab. 1,
category 4].
d. There is no up-down direction in space, as there is no
atmosphere there [S1-16]
(*) Numbers in parentheses designate the frequencies of schemes in students’ answers to the questionnaires and drawings
(prior to instruction). Codes in brackets: S1-16 designates line number 16 in the protocol of Session 1.
to the center of the astronomical body significantly strengthened and reached all 14 students.
Although Scheme UE-2 (observer’s orientation) survived in half of the students, one may notice
the diminishing power of this scheme in its b and c facets.
Furthermore, students frequently denied the relevance of the up-down notion “in space“ and
in spaceships (UE-3). Others aligned the down direction with the direction of the gravitational
force (UE-4). The latter seemingly refined the na€ve scheme “to the ground“. Scheme UE-5, which
related the up-down direction to falling, was new and presents the scientifically correct statement
of the operationally defined direction.14 Although the appearance of such understanding was not
frequent, its importance was indicative of the new way students make sense of reality in the
particular learning.
Students’ Knowledge of Weight and Gravitational Force
Prior to the instruction, the students talked about gravitational force as keeping objects on
planets (GP-1, see Table 10) and acting in proportion to their heaviness (GP-3). Students addressed
weight or heaviness as the feature of objects causing downward pull (WP-1). The progression in
knowledge following the instruction was prominent: the three “na€ve“ schemes were replaced by
more advanced, though not entirely correct schemes.
By the end of the instruction, we may mention the emerged recognition of gravitation as
acting in a vacuum, that is, without air (GE-2, see Table 11). Gravitational force was identified as
Table 9
Structure of students’ knowledge of Up-Down direction by the end of the instruction

UE-1. Down is the direction to a. The Earth’s center is the down direction, where gravitational
the center of the astronomical force pulls the spaceship [A3-6].
body (Earth, Moon), and up is b. On the Earth, down is always the direction to the ground. The
the opposite direction (14*) sky is in the up direction [A2-2] (1).
c. Students drew radial arrows to show the down direction for each
one of the people shown on the globe [A2-1] (13).
UE-2. Body orientation a. Up–down is according to the parts of the object: the spaceship’s
determines up-down direction devices, the astronauts’ legs/head, etc. [S4-14,S4- 15- 19].
(7) b. One cannot decide where is up and where is down, because one
cannot tell how astronauts stand there [S4- 11,12].
c. In a spaceship, the down direction for one person is different
from that for the other, and it doesn’t make sense [S4-21].
UE-3. There is no up and down a. In a spaceship, the down direction for one person is different
direction in space/in a from that for the other, and it doesn’t make sense [S4-21].
spaceship (9) b. In space, there is no up and down [A3-1].
c. Spaceships revolve the Earth on a circular track, and a circle has
no up or down [A3-2].
d. There is no down direction in the [orbiting] spaceship, but the
astronauts will know where the floor is, when they land [A3-3].
UE-4. Up-down direction is a. What determines down is the gravitational force, that is, where
determined by the things fall]A2-2, A3-5].
gravitational force (5) b. There is no up and down direction at a place without
gravitational force [S4-26].
c. There is no down in an orbiting spaceship -the gravitational
force is very weak or does not even exist there [A3-4].
d. The Earth’s center is the down direction, where the gravitational
force pulls the spaceship [A3-6].
UE-5. Falling determines the up- a. Floating/lack-of-falling of objects [in a spaceship] indicates
down direction (7) lack of up-down direction [S4-23].
b. There is no up and down in a spaceship, because objects do not
fall there [spaceship, space] [S4-23 –25].
c. Down is where the spaceship falls [A3-7].
d. What determines down is the gravitational force, that is, where
things fall [A2-2, A3-5].
(*) Numbers in parentheses designate the frequencies of schemes in students’ answers in the home assignment. The codes
in brackets: A1 stands for the answer to question 1 of the Assignment, A2–to question 2 there, and so on. S signifies Session.
S4-40 designates line number 40 in the protocol Session 4.
the cause of falling (GE-1). In accordance, floating was interpreted by some as indicating the
absence of gravitational force. The state of weightlessness was related to falling (WE-1),
and weight was related to the inherent “force of the object“ reminiscent of mass (WE-2).
Gravitational force and weight were connected by schemes WE-4 and WE-5 stating that the
gravitational force caused and determined weightdifferent claims. Scheme WE-4 appeared
frequently in three facets. Scheme WE-6 stating weight and gravitational force to be
different was also frequent.
Table 10
Structure of students’ knowledge of the Gravitational Force (GF) and Weight prior to the instruction

GP-1. GF keeps things on the a. People can stand at both poles because of GF. On the Moon,
astronomical body (Earth, with no GF, an astronaut may fall off the Southern pole [S1-2]*.
Moon). b. On the Moon, with no GF, an astronaut may fall when reaching
the edge [S-1].
c. Only strong GF (like that by Earth) can hold bodies on its
surface [S1-3].
d. The GF is similar to that of a magnet. The Moon is a weaker
magnet than the Earth, and heavy things might fall off it [S1-5].
GP-2. GF depends on the a. On the Moon, there is no GF . . . because there is no atmosphere

existence there. I think that atmosphere causes the GF [S1-2].
of air/ atmosphere b. Gravity acts on bodies when they are on the ground
but does not act on them when they are away from
the ground (in space) [S1-6; S1-8].
GP-3. GF acts on bodies in a. The Moon’s GF can’t hold heavy bodies (“of a ton”), but it can
proportion hold small things (people) [S1-4].
to their heaviness. b. The Moon’s GF is weaker than that of the Earth: a flag not
entrenched into the ground, would otherwise fly off. Astronauts
jump on the Moon to a greater height and need a ladder to push
their bodies down [S1-7, 9, 12].
c. Bodies need to be heavy for the GF to hold them. Heavy bodies
are attracted to Earth because GF makes it harder to lift them
[S1-9, 10, 11].
WP-1. Heaviness/weight of a. Bodies have weight on the moon; you can see the astronauts
bodies causes walking. Things without weight float! [S1-7].
downward pull on them and b. Astronauts have special equipment (heavy weights)
allows so that the attraction force holds them [S1-10].
gravity to hold them c. Heavy bodies are attracted to Earth because GF
makes it harder to lift them [S1- 11].
*S1-2 designates line 2 in the protocol of Session 1.
The enrichment of the schemes following the instruction did not imply their unconditional
scientific correctness. Facets could clarify this aspect. Thus, Facet WE-4a (see Table 11)—Bodies
in space [vacuum] have no weight because there is no gravitational force there – is important
beyond representing the known misconception. It specifies its scheme WE-4–Bodies’ weight is
determined by the GFacting on them – and shows that this scheme ignores the factors which might
fail its correctness. Thus, in a falling cabin or in a satellite, weighing does not reveal the presence
of gravitation. Therefore, a teacher may upgrade statement WE-4 making it correct by: The
gravitational force may cause the weight of bodies.
In any case, although the correctness of statements regarding weight might depend on the
weight definition, the students’ claim of the lack of gravitational force in a satellite is erroneous
regardless of the weight definition. Facet WE-4a represents students’ belief in the absence of
weight based on the interpretation of floating of objects by the observer inside a satellite. If the
students identified weight with gravitational force, the stated lack of weight may suggest a
conclusion about the lack of gravitation. The latter inference could then be reasoned by the salient
feature of the satellite environmentthe “space“ or vacuum. This erroneous chain of reasoning
Table 11
Structure of students’ knowledge of the Gravitational Force (GF) and Weight by the end of the instruction

GE-1. GF causes falling a. The spaceship cabin is isolated from GF and hence, the objects inside
float [do not fall] [S4-6, 29].
b. The Earth does not exert GF on the spaceship, because you see the
astronauts floating [not falling] in it [S4-27, 28].
c. GF exists in a vacuum, because objects do fall in a vacuum [A1-3, 4] (2).
d. In space, we float in a vacuum; we do not fall, despite the fact that
Earth acts [A1-2].
GE-2. GF is independent of a. GF exists in a vacuum, because objects do fall in vacuum / In space,

the presence of air (13) we float in a vacuum, we do not fall, despite the fact that Earth acts
[A1-2,3,4]
b. GF depends on the distance and masses, so the GF must act inside the
spaceship too [S4-29].
c. There is a vacuum on the moon, and GF acts there [S4-9, 10; A1-4–6].
d. The air just resists the GF. When there is no air – there is no resistance
and the GF is more powerful [A1-7].
WE-1. Bodies have no weight a. During falling/in a free fall no force comes from the object [S4-40, 45].
during falling/free fall b. The object has weight, but it does not manifest itself while falling [S4-48]
c. Floating bodies in a satellite have no weight, because they are in free-
fall [A4-3, 4; S4-46, 49, 50] (3).
WE-2. Inherent force/weight a. The force of the object’s mass acts on the spring and stretches it [S4-43].
of bodies comes from their b. During falling/in a free fall, no force comes from the object [S4-40;
mass S4-45].
c. The object has weight, but it does not manifest itself while falling [S4-48]
WE-3. Weight is a force a. Weight is the pressure exerted by one body on another body [S5-18].
/pressure exerted by a body b. Weight is a force exerted by the body on something [S5-5-8, 17-18;
on another object S4-43]
supporting the former c. The GF that we exert on the Earth - that is what our weight is [A5-6] (2).
WE-4. Bodies’ weight is a. Bodies in space [vacuum] have no weight because there is no GF there
determined by the GF [A1-1, A4-5] (2-3).
acting on them (14) b. The more powerful the GF, the more we weigh, and the weaker it is,
the less we weigh [A5-5].
c. Weight depends on GF. If there is (no) GF, then there is (no) weight
[A5-3, 4; S5-4, 9].
WE-5. The GF acting on a. The heaviness we feel [while holding the object] is the GF [A5-2] (1).
bodies is their weight (3) b. The GF that we exert on the Earth is what our weight is [A5-6] (2).
WE-6. Weight is different a. Weight is not the gravitational force. Weight is the force exerted by a
from GF (11) body on something [S5-5 – 7].
b. Weight is the level of our resistance/attraction to the GF [A5-7; S5-2].
c. Our weight is a kind of force, just like GF [A5-1] (1).
(*) Numbers in parentheses designate the frequencies of schemes in students’ answers in the home assignment. The codes
in brackets: A1 designates the answer to question 1 of the Assignment, A2–to question 2 there, and so on. S4-40 designates
line number 40 in the protocol of Session 4.

could be avoided, had the weight been defined independently of gravitation at the first place and as
suggested by 11 students in Scheme WE-6.
Scheme WE-3: Weight is a pressing force (or pressure) exerted by a body on the support
(another object)—represents students’ definition of weight in terms of pressing force and is
directly related to weighing, which measures the pressing force. Scheme WE-4: Bodies’ weight is
determined by the GF acting on them (14 students) and Scheme WE-5: The GF acting on bodies is
their weight (3 students)—represent different ideas. The former associates the gravitational force
with weight in a dependent relationship, but does not exclude other factors of influence. The latter
scheme, WE-5, however, unconditionally identifies weight with the gravitational force.15
Altogether, Tables 8–11 inform about the knowledge progression as expressed in terms of
scheme-facets structure. To further visualize the impact of the instruction, we produced two
concept maps (see Figure 5a, b). They represented the full range of ideas expressed by the students.
The maps visualize the meaning of the concepts as determined by conceptual connections
(Ausubel, 1968; Novak & Ca~nas, 2006). The maps addressed the concepts of up-down, weight and
gravitation, prior to and by the end of the instruction. In a way, the concept maps visualized
Tables 8–11, making their meaning explicit. The maps displayed how the students’ knowledge
changed. Each of the schemes was connected to one or two of the concepts in accordance with the
involvement of these concepts in the scheme or facet. The emerged structure portrayed the
cognitive relationships among the concepts and thus helped to clarify the conceptual learning by
the students exposed to certain instruction.
In our analysis, we realized that another concept—falling—played a prominent role in
connecting our three key concepts. When we added falling to the second map (see Figure 5b) its
connectedness strengthened, as better seen when falling is placed in the center of the map. This
fact was among the essential changes that emerged from the comparison between the knowledge
prior to and by the end of instruction. It was a feature of improvement.
In the maps, we mentioned the frequencies of scheme appearance (numbers in brackets)
elicited from the questionnaires and drawings. The frequency of each scheme was obtained
as a sum of its presence among all students. As already mentioned, students’ comments
during class discussions did not contribute to the calculated frequencies being sporadic in
nature.
As one may see in Figure 5a, scheme “heaviness/weight causes downward pull on bodies and
allows gravity to hold them“ (WP-1) presented a single link between weight and up-down
concepts prior to instruction. Scheme GP-3 connected between weight and gravitational force
being proportional. However, among its facets was the well-known misconception of gravitation
acting solely on heavy bodies on the Moon. There was no conceptual connection between up-
down and gravitational force prior to the instruction.
In contrast, Figure 5b portrays the more mature knowledge of the three concepts in question
by the end of the instruction. The more developed net of conceptual links testified to the
meaningful learning as determined by Ausubel (1968).
Discussion
In our study, we found evidence of 7th grade students’ genuine learning with respect to the
concepts of weight and gravitation. Our analysis allowed us to answer the research questions as
well as consider several other related educational issues.
Students’ Knowledge of the Subject Matter
With regard to our first research question, we may highlight the basic features of our results
regarding students’ knowledge. The previously known egocentric and anthropomorphic features
Figure 5. (a) Concept map for Up-Down, Weight, and Gravitational Force structured by means of schemes and facets
prior to the instruction. Some illustrative facets are shown in dashed frames. The numbers in brackets represent frequencies
of schemes elicited from questionnaires and drawings. (b) Concept map similar to that on (a) by the end of the instruction.

of children’s conception of up-down direction changed. Following the instruction, the conceptions
of universal or arbitrary direction disappeared as well as the misconception of the need of objects
to be heavy (or light!) in order to be held by gravity. The remained identification referring to body
orientation relating legs to down and head – to up and to floor and ceiling as signifying up-down is
apparently strong in language. However, the fact that all 14 students considered “down” as the
direction towards the center of the celestial body was a significant change, one that was especially
important for establishing the up-down direction as the direction of gravity. The best outcome was
students’ inventing up-down defined operationally, by falling.
As other researchers, we observed the misconception about weight caused by air
(atmospheric pressure) and weightlessness as caused by vacuum. These conceptions disappeared
after the instruction. All our students related gravitational force to the weight of bodies but most of
them did not equate between weight and gravitational force, but connected them in a cause-effect
relationship. Distinguishing between weight and gravitational force as notions of different
meaning matched the goals of the instruction. Weight was determined operationally as
corresponding to object heaviness manifested in its pressure on the support. Students were able to
overcome the erroneous relation of weightlessness to the lack of gravitation. The major gain was
the prominent increase in knowledge in the group reconstruction of weight definition, while
reserving another role to gravitation–attraction.
Besides this general maturation, the revealed role of falling, lacking prior to the instruction,
presents a finding of primary importance and is suggestive for teaching design. Falling was
perceived by the students as a salient feature of a situation and evidence of either weight or
gravitation. We found falling being deeply interwoven with weight and gravitation. In a sense, this
finding recapitulated the renowned role falling played in history of science, where it led scholars to
the comprehension of weight and gravitation (Koyre, 1965, 1978).
Pedagogy
With regard to the applied pedagogy we may infer about its basic featuresas asked by the
second research question. Our historical excurse familiarized the students with the relevant
phenomena, introduced them to the stage of scientific account of weight-gravitation and allowed
their questions they probably would not have asked without that overview. This introduction
served as a sort of advance organizer (Ausubel, 1968). Students became familiar with the pertinent
terminology, the ways of reasoning, possible accounts of the subject matter. The excurse furnished
the meaningful leaning (Galili & Hazan, 2000b; Galili, 2012).
In the instruction, we applied Thinking Journey to two situations both novel to the
students: the Moon environment and an orbiting spaceship. We found the first environment as
promoting understanding of the universality of gravitation, and the secondsuggesting the
distinction between gravitation and weight. We believe that the proper choice of considered
situations provides appropriate perspectives on the considered concept and presents a
powerful teaching strategy if the chosen situations complement each other in revealing the
essence of the considered concept (Stein & Galili, 2014). The successful instruction should
address a representative set of physical situations that would enable students’ construction of
an adequate concept image (Vinner, 1991). One may relate the requirement of essential
complementarity, considering it as guiding the pedagogy of contrasting cases (Scheker &
Niedderer, 1996; Schwartz et al., 2011).
Unlike the popular approach of drawing on familiar everyday situations, our set suggested the
opposite. We started from a novel situation—on the Moon—which puzzled and even confused
some students. The regular environment was subsequently used for comparison as an equally
important component of teaching. Moreover, it is the familiarity with the situation that might
impede learning, since the regular environment is seldom questioned and normally fortified by a
na€ve account, often misleading in science (Schur & Galili, 2009). The extension to the never-
experienced situations requires pictorial representations. They surprised causing a “cognitive
drive“ (Ausubel, 1968). Such were encounters with lunar environment, the reality in a satellite and
on the “super-high“ tower. These situations triggered students’ imagination, inviting them to ask,
discuss and analyze.
The imaginary visits were remedial for the erroneous conceptions of weight-air
dependence and vacuum neutralized gravitation. The lunar experience, however, was limited
since standing on the Moon is not essentially different from standing on the Earth. Therefore,
we moved to the situation in which the gravitational force acted but weighing provided zero
results – the satellite. The salient feature there was floating (“not falling“) of things that totally
caught the students’ attention. The implied reconsidering and dismissal of the up-down concept
supported the following analysis of weightlessness and the split between weight and
gravitational forces. It appears appropriate to arrange the teaching of weight around the
discussion and analysis of falling as the anchoring concept (Brown, 1992; Clement, 1993;
Camp & Clement, 1994) stimulating comprehending the operation definition of weight. The
discussion based mediation was not only effective teaching but caused students’ engagement
and interest throughout the entire period of instruction.
Construction of the Concept of Weight
Our instruction matched the constructivist vision of teaching. It was quite in line with the
strategy of concept substitution (Grayson, 2004) in which the instruction detects and draws on the
intuition of students encouraging transforming their conceptions to the scientifically correct
knowledge. In our case, as hypothesized by us, the intuitive image of weight as the heaviness of
supporting an object matched the operational definition of weight.
Given the considered results, we may address our third research question regarding the extent
of the tested short instruction towards the operationally defined weight.
When we considered the situation inside a satellite, we focused on the features which
stimulated the separation between weight and gravitation. In the discussion, most of the students
naturally took the perspective of the astronauts inside the satellite and discerned weight as related
to the pressing force by an object on its support. Two students, however, raised a different
perspective—that of the observer located on the Earth’s surface. The teacher did not develop this
trend of thought as the goal was the operational definition of weight regardless the gravitational
force kept acting on the satellite. A more extended addressing the role of different observers
(frames of reference) in the interpretation of forces would present a significant progress though
could transcend curriculum of middle school science.16 In fact, students related weightlessness in
a satellite to two states: free falling and floating. These present in fact the same state in perspective
of two different observers. We could afford not to elaborate this aspect since the students arrived to
the physical criterion which presents the essence of the weight concept: the pressure exerted by an
object on its support. A more advanced instruction may expand by considering a free gravitational
movement as providing weightlessness regardless the observer.
Seeking further enhancement of students’ knowledge of weight, one may suggest a rotating
space station orbiting the Earth. In such a situation, both the gravitational force and weight would
possess finite and independent magnitudes and directions.17 However, this extension, fitting
Thinking Journey pedagogy, may require a different concept of perspective and observer has not
been explored in educational research regarding school teaching.
It is important that in their construction of the concepts of up-down, weight and gravitation,
our 7th grade students drew on the operational as well as theoretical considerations matching the
requirement of modern physics. The regular instruction in middle school (usually in 9th grade)
often draws on the abstract theoretical ideas illustrated by experience, whereas physics essentially
draws on the operational criteria in defining concepts. It is the operational understanding of weight
that is close to young students’ na€ve schema of weight in sense-based intuition (Piaget, 1972).
Therefore, it is the operational definition of weight that matches the requirement of consistency
and continuity of concept presentation through K-12 curriculum as suggested in Project 2061
(AAAS, 1985).
Concluding Remarks on Advantages and Limitations
The importance of this study is in showing the effectiveness and feasibility of teaching
and learning the concepts of weight and gravitational force together with up-down direction
within the operational conceptual framework. Attempting to change the curriculum based on
the gravitational definition of weight it provided reliable information about such change.
Yet, this study was limited to a qualitative account and applied to a small group of students
(14)—less than a regular class of middle school. We used a specific pedagogy of mediated
teaching of concepts through class discussion which well facilitated revealing the structure
of students’ knowledge as a group in terms of scheme-facets. Other studies focusing on
individual rather than group knowledge may reveal important details in this regard. Still
other studies could apply the suggested pedagogy to larger classes to evaluate the statistical
validity of the suggested teaching. Our study left out of research scope other features of
gravitation such as its reciprocal nature and its dependence on inertial mass. They all were
superfluous to our research focus. Addressing the genus of the weight concept our study
refrained from holistic information about curricular restructuring.
The representative set of physical situations used by us was effective pedagogically. It
included two unfamiliar situations compared to regular environment. All three situations—Moon,
Earth, satellite—comprised a minimal set revealing complementary manifestations of the weight
concept. In the Moon’s environment, students appreciated the universality of gravitational force
and developed the operational meaning of the up-down direction. Considering the state of
weightlessness in the satellite led students to distinguish between gravitational force (the cause of
orbiting the Earth) and weight (the force that objects naturally exert on their support). We found
that falling might serve as an anchor in the pedagogy relating the concepts relevant to the basic
knowledge of weight and gravitation. The approach of representative set may be applied
introducing curricular changes. Further studies may, however, extend the suggested set of
situations, including such important settings as weight of objects immersed in water and even
weight in a rotating environment. That would further develop the new framework of weight
concept.
In conclusion, the study tried to be indicative and stimulating. It applied a new conceptual
framework of the weight concept defined operationally to students as early as 7th grade and found
it feasible, beneficial, fitting students’ intuition and causing meaningful learning.
Endnotes
1
The definition based on Eq. (2) is adopted in the International Standard in Mechanics ISO
80000-4 (Taylor & Thompson, 2008, p. 52).
2
This is the curricular trend in our country.
3
There is still evidence of such historical terms as “atomic weight“ and “molecular weight“,
instead of “atomic mass“ and “molecular mass“, which do not help students in their learning about
weight.
4
Unlike gravity, a very old notion of heaviness and weight, the notion of gravitation was
introduced by Newton and has served physics since then. See for example, Gravitation by Misner,
Thorne, & Wheeler (1973)— a well-known compendium on Einstein’s theory, often considered
the “Bible“ of General Relativity.
5
For that reason, weights in use were marked with geographical location.
6
We may add here that the frequently used term gravity - a very old term for
heaviness - identified with weight defined operationally. The Guide for the Use of the
International System of Units distinguishes: “The local force of gravity on a body, that is,
its weight, consists of the resultant of all the gravitational forces acting on the body and
the local centrifugal force due to the rotation of the celestial object.“ (Thompson & Taylor,
2008, p. 23). Indicatively, NASA experts use “zero-gravity“ addressing the state of
weightlessness in space and not “zero-gravitation“.
7
For instance, for a person in an orbiting satellite the weight is zero and the gravitational on
him/her causes the continuous orbiting. In a rotating space station (in future) weight will be radial
to the axis of rotation and gravitational force will be towards the Earth - different magnitudes and
different directions.
8
The Israeli curriculum for middle schools adopts the gravitational definition of weight.
However, textbooks are split between gravitational (Orad, 2001, p. 373) and operational (Galili &
Ovadia, 2007, p. 143) definitions. In the US, usually the gravitational definition is adopted in lower
level school instruction (Daniel et al., 2005).
9
As quoted above, teaching the operationally defined weight concept was first
introduced in the US (King, 1962), but it was massively adopted in science classes of the
Eastern Europe (the former USSR and Yugoslavia, for instance). In the Western educational
discourse the awareness of another conceptual framework of weight is often lacking (e.g.
Andersson, 1990).
10
It was mentioned that the gravitational force - attraction between any two bodies - can be
measured directly in experiment as made by Cavendish in 1797, or by the curvature of planet
trajectory, as Newton did.
11
We may mention that in the collected data we did not see any evidence of external
consultation even if such was possible as we did not put any restrictions for students’ work at
home. Moreover, the students argued by their unique experience, specific pictures, only they
observed and discussed in the class.
12
The scientifically correct definition of up-down direction is operational - the plumbing-line
direction. For further clarification, see Barlett and Hewitt (1987).
13
The quotes hereafter were translated from Hebrew. They might not keep the flavor of
authentic expressions by young students. We are limited to present the full variety of students’
expressions. In brackets, S1-1 designates line 1 in the protocol of Session 1.
14
The unique determination of up-down direction should not be confused with the freedom of
choosing any frame of reference as desired by an observer.
15
The difference becomes essential in certain environments such as rotation, not addressed in
this study.
16
Such a perspective is presented in a popular science format (Einstein & Infeld, 1938).
17
Visual images of such a situation could be taken from Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space
Odyssey.
References
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) (1985). Science for all Americans.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Andersen, H., Barker, P., & Chen, X. (2006). The cognitive structure of scientific revolutions.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Arons, A. B.(1990). A guide to introductory physics teaching. New York: Wiley.
Ausubel, D. P.(1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Barlett, A., & Hewitt, P. (1987). Why the Ski Instructor Says “Lean forward!” The Physics Teacher, 25,
72–76.
Barlett, A.(2010). Apparent weight: A concept that is confusing and unnecessary. Physics Teacher,
48(8), 522.
Bridgman, P. W.(1952). The nature of some physical concepts. New York: Philosophical Library.
Brown, D. E.(1992). Using examples and analogies to remediate misconceptions in physics: Factors
influencing conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 17–34.
Brown, R.(1999). WeightDon’t use the word at all. Physics Teacher, 37, 241.
Camp, C. W., & Clement, J. (1994). Preconceptions in mechanics. Lessons dealing with students’
conceptual difficulties. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Chaikin, S. E.(1963). The Physical Basis of Mechanics. Moscow: Gosudarstvenoe Izdatelstvo Fisiko-
Matematicheskoi Literaturi (in Russian).
Chi, M. T. H.(1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students’ questions and discursive interaction: their impact on
argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
47(7), 883–908.
Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The Science Classroom as a Site of Epistemic Talk: A Case
Study of a Teacher’s Attempts to Teach Science Based on Argument. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300.
Clement, J.(1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’
preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241–1257.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons and Evaluative
Criteria. Zeitschrift fiir Soziologie, 19(6), 418–427.
Curriculum of Science and Technology for Middle School, Israel: Ministry of Education. Retrieved
from: IR http://cms., education., gov., il/EducationCMS/Units/Tochniyot_Limudim/science_tech/Tochnit-
Meodkenet/.
diSessa, A.(1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105–225.
diSessa, A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-
representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117–160.
Daniel, L. H., Hackett, J., Moyer, R. H., & Vasquez, J-A. (2005). Macmillan McGraw-Hill Science.
New York: McMillan McGraw-Hill.
Ding, L., Chabay, R., & Sherwood, B. (2013). How do students in an innovative principle-based
mechanics course understand energy concepts? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6),
722–747.
Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., & Kattmann, U. (2005). Towards science education research that is relevant
for improving practice: The model of educational reconstruction. In H. E. Fischer (Ed.), Developing
standards in research on science education (pp. 1-9). London: Taylor & Francis.
Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1938). The Evoution of Physics (pp. 226–235). Cambridge, UK: University
Press.
Einstein, A. (1916 /1923). The foundation of the general theory of relativity in the principle of relativity
(pp. 111–164). New York: Dover.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M. B., Egozi, M., & Ben-Shachar-Segev, N. (1991). Intervention
programs for retarded performers: goals, means and expected outcomes. In L. Idol, & B. Jones (Eds.),
Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implication for reform (Vol. 2). pp. 139–178 Hillsboro NJ:
Erlbaum with NCREL.
Figueiredo, J. M. L. (2005). Advantages of adopting the operational definition of weight, eprint arXiv:
physics/0505193, http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0505193.

Fraser, J. M., Timan, A. L., Miller, K., Dowd, J. E., Tucker, L., & Mazur, E. (2014). Teaching and physics
education research: Bridging the gap. Reports on Progress in Physics, 77(3), 032401.
Flick, U.(2010). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 4th ed. London: Sage Publication.
French, A. P.(1971). Newtonian Mechanics. (pp. 129–130) New York: Norton.
French, A. P.(1983). Is g really the acceleration due to gravity?. Physics Teacher, 21, 528–529.
French, A. P.(1995). On weightlessness. American Journal of Physics, 63(2), 105.
Galili, I., & Bar, V. (1997). Children’s operational knowledge about weight. International Journal of
Science Education, 19(3), 317–340.
Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2000a). Learners’ knowledge in optics: Interpretation, structure, and analysis.
International Journal in Science Education, 22(1), 57–88.
Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2000b). The influence of a historically oriented course on students’
content knowledge in optics evaluated by means of facets-schemes analysis. American Journal of
Physics, 68(7), S3–15.
Galili, I., & Kaplan, D. (1996). Students’ operation with the concept of weight. Science Education,
80(4), 457–487.
Galili, I., & Lavrik, V. (1998). Flux concept in learning about light: A critique of the present situation.
Science Education, 82(5), 591–614.
Galili, I., & Lehavi, Y. (2003). The importance of weightlessness and tides in teaching gravitation.
American Journal of Physics, 71(11), 1127–1135.
Galili, I., & Lehavi, Y. (2006). Definitions of physical concepts: A study of physics teachers’ knowledge
and views. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 521–541.
Galili, I., & Ovadia, D. (2007). Fundamentals of Physics. Tel Aviv: Maor. (in Hebrew).
Galili, I.(1993). Weight and gravity. Teachers’ ambiguity and students’ confusion about the concepts.
International Journal of Science Education, 15(2), 149–162.
Galili, I.(1995). Interpretation of children’s understanding of weightlessness. Research in Science
Education, 25(1), 51–74.
Galili, I.(2001). Weight versus gravitational force: Historical and educational perspectives. Internation-
al Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1073–1093.
Galili, I.(2012). Promotion of content cultural knowledge through the use of the history and philosophy
of science. Science & Education, 21(9), 1283–1316.
G}onen, S.(2008). A study on student teachers’ misconceptions and scientifically acceptable conceptions
about mass and gravity. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 70–81.
Grayson, D.(2004). Concept substitution: A teaching strategy for helping students disentangle related
physics concepts. American Journal of Physics, 72(8), 1126–1133.
Gurel, Z., & Acar, H. (2003). Research into students’ views about basic physics principles in a
weightless environment. Astronomy Education Review, 2(1), 65–81.
Halliday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (2001). Fundamentals of Physics Extended. 9th ed., pp. 119–128)
New York: Wiley.
Hecht, E.(1994). Physics. (pp.100-101, 136-138) Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole.
Hecht, E.(2006). There Is No Really Good Definition of Mass. The Physics Teacher, 44, 40–45.
Hempel, C.(1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. (p. 91) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hershkowitz, R., Hadas, N., Dreyfus, T., & Schwarz, B. (2007). Abstracting processes, from
individuals’ constructing of knowledge to a group’s “shared knowledge”. Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 19(2), 41–68.
Hewitt, P. G.(1992). Conceptual physics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hewitt, P. G.(2002). Conceptual physics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hewitt, P. G.(2013). Weight. Physics Teacher, 51(6), 330.
Hobson, A.(2003). Physics. concepts and connections. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Holton, G., & Brush, S. J. (1973). Introduction to concepts and theories in physical science. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Iona, M.(1975). The meaning of weight. Physics Teacher, 13, 263.
Iona, M.(1976). Weight and weightlessness. Physics Teacher, 14(5), 491.

Iona, M.(1988). Weightlessness and microgravity. Physics Teacher, 26(2), 72.

Iona, M.(1999). Weight - An official definition. Physics Teacher, 37(4), 238.
Karplus, R. (1969 /2003) Introductory physics: A model approach. New York: Benjamin.
Kavanagh, C., & Sneider, C. (2007). Learning about gravity I. Free fall: A guide for teachers and
curriculum developers. The Astronomy Education Review, 5(2).
Keller, F. J., Gettys, W. E., & Skove, M. J. (1993). Physics (pp. 99–100). New York: McGraw Hill.
King, A. L.(1962). Weight and Weightlessness. American Journal of Physics, 30(4), 387.
Knight, R. D.(2004). Physics for scientists and engineers. Reading, Mass: Pearson.
Knight, R. D.(2013). Physics for scientists and engineers. 3rd ed. Reading, Mass: Pearson.
Koyre, A.(1965). Newtonian studies (pp. 239–260). Sussex: Harvester, Hassock.
Koyre, A.(1978). Galileo studies (pp. 65–100). Sussex: Harvester, Hassock.
Kruger, C. J., Summers, M. K., & Palacio, D. J. (1990). An investigation of some English primary school
teachers’ understanding. British Educational Research Journal, 16(4), 383–397.
Kucuk, M.(2005). Examination of different learning levels of students’ and student science teachers’
concepts about gravity. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 2(1), 23–28.
Kuhn, T.(1970). The cognitive structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Lerner, S. L.(1996). Physics (pp. 61–63). Sudbury, Mass: Jones & Barlett.
Lopas, V.(2009). Weight and force of gravity. Pedagogical Review, 19(2), 147–164. (in Croatian).
Margenau, H.(1950). The role of definitions in science. The Nature of Physical Reality (pp. 220–244).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Marion, J. B., & Hornyack, W. F. (1982). Physics for science and engineering. Vol. 1. p. 129 New York:
Saunders.
Marton, F., Runesson, U., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). The space of learning. In F. Marton, & A. B. M. Tsui
(Eds.), Classroom Discourse and the Space of Learning (pp. 3-40). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Matthews, M.(1984). Science Teaching. The Role of History and Philosophy of Science (pp. 49–82).
New York: Routledge.
Matthews, M.(2000). Time for science education: How teaching the history and philosophy of pendulum
motion can contribute to science literacy. New York: Plenum Press.
Minstrell, J.(1982). Explaining the “at rest“ condition of an object. Physics Teacher, 20, 10–14.
Minstrell, J.(1992). Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, &
H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 110-126).
Institut f€ur die P€adagogik der Naturwissenschaften, Kiel, Germany.
Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., & Wheeler, J. A. (1973). Gravitation. San Francisco: Freeman.
Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: a
model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81, 405–424.
Morrison, R. C.(1999). Weight and gravity-the need for consistent definition. Physics Teacher, 37,
51–52.
Neumann, K., Viering, T., Boone, W. J., & Fischer, H. E. (2013). Towards a learning progression of
energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 162–188.
Newton, I. (1729/1974). Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. (Trans. F. Cajori) Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Noce, G., Torosantucci, G., & Vicentini, M. (1988). The floating of objects on the moon: Prediction
from a theory or experimental facts? International Journal of Science Education, 10(1), 61.
Novak, J. D., & Ca~nas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them
(Technical Report No. IHMC CmapTools 2006-01). Pensacola, FL: Institute for Human and Machine
Cognition.
Nussbaum, J.(1979). Children’s conception of the Earth as a cosmic body. Science Education, 63(1),
83–93.
Nussbaum, J.(1985). The Earth as a cosmic body.InR. Driver, E. Guesne & A. Tiberghien (Eds.),
Children’s Ideas in Science (pp. 170-192). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Orad, Y.(2001). World of Energy. Science and Technology for Middle School (p. 373). Ministry of
Culture and Education, Curriculum Department, Israel. (in Hebrew).
Osborne, J.(2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science,
328, 463–466.
Palmer, D.(2001). Students’ alternative conceptions and scientifically acceptable conceptions about
gravity. International Journal of Science Education, 23(7), 691–706.
Piaget, J.(1972). The Child’s Conception of Physical Causality. Littlefield, New Jersey: Totowa Adams.
Reichenbach, H. (1927 /1958). The Philosophy of Space and Time. New York: Dover.
Reif, F., & Larkin, J. H. (1991). Cognition in scientific and everyday domains: Comparison and learning
implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 733–760.
Reif, F.(1995). Understanding Basic Mechanics. New York: Wiley.
Resnick, R., & Halliday, D. (1966). Physics (p. 93). New York: Wiley.
Ruggiero, S., Cartelli, A., Dupre, F., & Vincentini, M. (1985). Weight, gravity and air pressure: Mental
representations by Italian middle school pupils. European Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 181–194.
Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views
and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148.
Schur, Y., & Galili, I. (2009). A thinking journey - a new mode of teaching science. International Journal
of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 627–646.
Schur, Y., Galili, I., & Shapiro, T. (2009). Multiple perspectives in teaching science - Using Thinking
Journey for understanding the day-night concept. Journal of Science Education, 2(10), 94–98.
Sears, F. W., & Zemansky, M. W. (1882). University Physics. (pp. 18, 66) New York: Addison Wesley.
Shanash, S. Ya, & Evenchick, E. Ye (1985). Scientific Basis of School Physics. Moscow: Pedagogika (in
Russian).
Sharma, M. D., Millar, R. M., Smith, A., & Sefton, I. M. (2004). Students’ understandings of gravity in
an orbiting spaceship. Research in Science Education, 34, 267–289.
Scheker, N., & Niedderer, H. (1996). Contrastive Teaching: A strategy to promote qualitative conceptual
understanding of science. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. I. Frazer (Eds.) Improving Teaching and Learning
in Science and Mathematics (pp. 141-151). New York: Teachers College Press.
Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with
contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology,
103(4), 759–775.
Shkedi, A.(2003). Words of meaning: Qualitative research-theory and practice. Tel Aviv, Israel: Ramot
(in Hebrew).
Sneider, C., & Ohadi, M. (1998). Unraveling students’ misconceptions about the Earth’s shape and
gravity. Science Education, 82, 265.
Solomon, J. (1984). Prompts, cues and discrimination: The utilization of two separate knowledge
systems. European Journal of Science Education, 6, 277–284.
Stein, H., & Galili, I. (2014). The Impact of Operational Definition of Weight Concept on Students’
Understanding of Physical Situations. International Journal of Research in Science and Mathematical
Education. DOI: 10.1007/s10763-014- 9556-7.
Stamenkovsk, S, & Zajkov, O. (2014). Seventh Grade Students’ Qualitative Understanding of the
Concept of Mass Influenced by Real Experiments and Virtual Experiments. European Journal of Physics
Education, 5(2), 20–30.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory. London: Sage Publications.
Taylor, B. N. & Thompson, A. (Eds.) (2008). The international system of units (SI). NIST Special
Publication 330, p. 52.
Taylor, K.(1974). Weight and centrifugal force. Physics Education, 9, 357–360.
Thompson, A., & Taylor, B. N. (2008). Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI),
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Special Publication 811, 2008 Edition. Gaithersburg,
MD, p.23.

Tiberghien, A., Cross, D., & Sensevy, G. (2014). The Evolution of Classroom Physics Knowledge in
Relation to Certainty and Uncertainty. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 930–961.
Vidakovic, D., & Martin, W. O. (2004). Small-group searches for mathematical proofs and individual
reconstructions of mathematical concepts. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23(4), 465–492.
Vinner, S.(1991). The role of definitions in teaching and learning mathematics. In: D. Tall (Ed.)
Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 65-81). Boston: Academic Publishers.
Voigt, J.(1995). Thematic patterns of interaction and sociomathematics norms. InP. Cobb & H.
Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom culture (pp. 163-201).
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in development. Review of
Educational Research, 57, 51–67.
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in
childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.
Walker, J.(2008). Halliday/Resnick Fundamentals of Physics (pp. 95-96). New York: Wiley.
Webster’s New World Dictionary (1972). Item: weight. New York: Prentice Hall Press.
Young, H. D., & Freedman, R. A. (2004). University Physics (pp. 120, 441, 459-460). New York:
Pearson, Addison Wesley.
Young, H. D., & Freedman, R. A. (2012). University Physics (pp. 406, 421-422). New York: Pearson,
Addison Wesley.

Shovi PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shovi PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 52, NO. 9, PP.

Teaching a New Conceptual Framework of Weight and Gravitation

Received 23 July 2014; Accepted 7 March 2015

Correspondence to: I. Galili; E-mail: igal.galili@mail.huji.ac.il

# 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Gravitational force, Gravitational force

Newton Einstein 1916

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Instructional Approach of this Study

Structuring Students’ Knowledge

1. How do middle school students conceptualize up-down direction, weight, and

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Based on the accumulated knowledge we could confront the curricular questions:

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

terms of scheme-facets organization. Finally, we present concept maps allowing holistic

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Teacher: What is unusual in this video? [S4-1]

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Quote # Answer Frequency

* A1-1 designates type 1 answer to the assignment question 1.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Quote # Answer Frequency

*A2-1 designates type 1 answer to the assignment question 2.

Quote # Answer Frequency

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Quote # Answer Frequency

*A4-1 designates type 1 answer to the assignment question 4.

Quote # Answer Frequency

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Results—Second Stage of Data Analysis

Students’ Knowledge of Up-Down Direction

Schemes of Knowledge Facets of Knowledge

Schemes of Knowledge Facets of Knowledge

Schemes of Knowledge Facets of Knowledge

GP-2. GF depends on the a. On the Moon, there is no GF . . . because there is no atmosphere

Schemes of Knowledge Facets of Knowledge

GE-2. GF is independent of a. GF exists in a vacuum, because objects do fall in vacuum / In space,

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Iona, M.(1988). Weightlessness and microgravity. Physics Teacher, 26(2), 72.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

You might also like