Physics Education

Related content
- The Force Concept Inventory
Students' concept of force: the importance of Antti Savinainen and Philip Scott

understanding Newton's third law - Swirling tea leaves: problem and solution
Guy S M Moore

- College students' conceptions about

To cite this article: David E Brown 1989 Phys. Educ. 24 353 vector kinematics
Jose M Aguirre and Graham Rankin

View the article online for updates and enhancements. Recent citations
- Misconception of sound and conceptual
change: A cross sectional study on
students’ materialistic thinking of sound
Haim Eshach et al

- Pasi Nieminen et al

- The Effect of Using a Visual

Representation Tool in a Teaching-
Learning Sequence for Teaching Newton’s
Third Law
Antti Savinainen et al

This content was downloaded from IP address 164.73.224.2 on 12/05/2018 at 00:33

Phys. Educ. 24 11989). Printed In the UK
Students’ concept of force: the
importance of understanding
Newton’s third law
David E Brown
Data indicate that students have a naive view of
force as a property ofobjects.Thissuggests
that Newton‘s third law, which makes explicit
the relational quality of forces, may need to be
stressed in teaching physics.
A number of studies conducted in recent years have
demonstrated a wide range of beliefs about physical
phenomena which students have apparently formed
on their own without the benefit of formal instruc-
tion. Most of thestudenterrorsthat have been
documented in Newtonian mechanics have been on
questions designed to test conceptual understanding
of Newton’s first or second laws. Only a few (e.g.
Maloney 1984, Terry and Jones 1986) treat the third
law. Thisemphasis on the first two of Newton’s
three laws is in keeping with the emphasis placed on
the first two laws in many American textbooks.
By contrast, many textbooks treat the third law in
passing, either simply mentioning it briefly as an
unsupported statement of fact or as an addendum to
the section covering conservation of momentum.
The results of this study indicate that this type of
treatment is insufficient to counter the misconcep-
tions students hold about the third law. This might
be a small concern if the third law is in fact only an
insignificant piece of the Newtonian picture, but in
this paper it is argued that the third law should be
treated as a much more significant part of an intro-
ductory physics course since it is important for
developing the students’ qualitative
concept of
force.
Method
The data in this paper come from three sources: (i)
an interviewing study involving oral tutoring, (ii) an
interviewing study involving tutoring with written
David Brown is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in
the Physics Department, University of
Massachusetts. He obtained his doctorate in Science
Education in 1987.
0031-9120/89/060353+06 $02.50 0 1989 IOP Publlshlng Ltd
materials, and (iii) a multiple choice diagnostic test.
The oral tutoring study involved a small sample of
five high-school students who had not yet taken
physics.
In the tutoring study (described in more detail in
Brown and Clement (1987b) and Brown (1987)), 21
pre-physics high-school students were given written
explanations of why a table exerts a force upward on
abook resting on the table, with pre-and post-
questions to assess the effect of the explanations.
The multiple choice diagnostic test was adminis-
tered to seven physics classes in two high schools
(see Brown and Clement (1987a) for the complete
test).The science curriculum in the schools was
typical for the United States with students taking
physics generally in their final year of secondary
education (17-18 years of age) following chemistry.
All of the questions concerned the concept of force
in various contexts,and the majority could be
answered using a basic knowledge of Newton’s third
law. The test was administered at the beginning of
the year and again after all instruction in mechanics
had been completed in order to assess gains from
instruction (teachers were not aware of the contents
of the test). Scores are reported only for students
who took both the pre-course and post-course tests
(a total of 78 students).
Results
This section examines thedata from the studies
which converge on a general naive view of force as a
property of single objects (objects ‘having’ more or
less force and thus being more or less ‘force-full’).
This is opposed to the Newtonian view of pairs of
forces arising from interactions between objects.
Interviewingstudyinvolving oral tutoring. Inthe
oral tutoring study, every one of the five students
answered withhigh confidence that a moving cue
ball exerts a greaterforce than the stationary billiard
ball when they collide. In every case, the justifica-
353
tion given for this conclusion was that the moving
ball ‘had’more force, andthusexerteda greater
force in the collision. An example is given below:
S1: I think that the moving object has more force
. . . I think the cue ball has greater force when they
collide because the [billiard] ball is then moved.
Three of the five students discussed the moving ball
not only as ‘having’ force, but also as able totransfer
that force during the collision. For example:
S3: The force from the moving ball would be truns-
ferred tothe stationaryball, so the force would
move from the moving ball to the ball that wasn’t
moving.
Interviewingstudyinvolvingtutoringwithwritten
materials. Such a conception of force, as a property
of single objects rather than as arising from an
interaction, can be observed in problems involving
static situations as well, as illustrated by the follow-
ing transcript segments fromthe tutoring study using
written materials. In the steel blocks problem, a 200
pound (90 kg) steel block (block A) rests on topof a
40 pound steel block (block B), and the student is
asked to compare the force A exerts on B with the
force B exerts on A (see figure l(d)). The following
student expressed a belief that since theheavier
block ‘had’ more force, not only would it exert a
greater force, it would push the lighter block into
the ground.
A B
lo) Stockcars
Q Q lb) Stationaryboxes
A B
( c ) O f f l c e chairs
n Id) Steelblocks
4 L - l
I f ) Pulllng block A
l e ) Bowler
( f r o m Maloney 19041
S4: I think it [the 40 pound block B] exerts a force
up, but I don’t think it exerts enough to stopA [the
200 poundupper block] from pushing B into the
ground. See,it just makes the thing slower. So say B
only weighed one pound, then A would have 199
pounds more than B would, and so it would push it
into the ground faster.
This next student also felt the weight of each block
determined the force it could exert.
S5: I would say that A and B exert a force on each
other, but A exerts a largerforce, more weight, and
covers the entire face of this box, with 200pounds of
pressure which is 160 more pounds pushing down on
the box.
These answers were given after a full page explana-
tion of Newton’s third lawwhich gave numerous
examples from everyday experience, yet none of the
students made even the slightest reference to the
third law in their explanations.
Multiplechoice
diagnostic
test. That problems
involving the third law are difficult for studentseven
after instruction was borne out by the results of the
diagnostic test. For the 78 students tested, the thir-
teen third law questionswere answered correctly
only 44% of the time on the post-test, a 21% gain
from the average pre-test score of 23%. The data in
the multiple choice diagnostic study also support the
view that many students adopt a concept of force as
an innate oracquired property of objects rather than
140 kg
A B
280 g
Figure 1. Problems
drawing out a ’force-
fullness’ conception.
as arising from an interaction between objects. Six Table 2. Percentage of a / / answers (correct and
problems in particular on the diagnostic would tend incorrect) consistent with a concept of force as a
to draw out this conception of force (see figure 1).In property of objects (n= 78).
each of theseproblems, there is an object which Pre-test (“/o) Post-test (“/o)
is moreor less unambiguously stronger, faster
heavier, more acting as an agent of causation than Stock cars 46 58
the other object, orsome combination of the above Stationary boxes 54 46
53 Office chairs 77
(cf Maloney 1984). Students with a concept of force Steel blocks 78 40
as an innate or acquired property of objects would be Bowler 99 94
expected to answer thatthe heavier, faster,etc,46 Pulling block A 51
object (the object which ‘has’ moreforce) would
exert the greaterforce, while the otherobject would Total 67 56
exert either a lesser force or no force at all. Each of
these problems had six answer choices which were
answers for this problem. On both the pre-test and
slight variations on the following: (1) Aexertsa
the post-test, of the students answering incorrectly,
greater force, ( 2 ) B exerts a greater force, (3) the
in all cases the answers consistent with a ‘force-
forces are equal, (4) only A exerts a force, (5) only
fullness’ conception of forcerepresented at least
B exerts a force, and (6) neither exerts a force. The
50% of the incorrect answers and for most problems
one exception is Pulling block A, which had only
this percentage was much higher. If students were
choices 1-3.
drawn equally to each of the distractors, one would
Asan example consider the bowler problem
expect that the two answers consistent with the view
(figure l(e)) in which the student is asked to com-
of force as property would claim only about 40% of
pare the force a 16 pound bowling ball exerts on a 4
the incorrect answers. As can be seen from the totals
pound pin when the ball strikes the pin. In this case
in table 3, 79% of the incorrect answers on the pre-
the student might consider the bowling ball to be
test and 85% of the incorrect answers on the post-
clearly more ‘force-full’ because it is moving, itis
test were of this form. This provides strong evidence
heavier, and it is more able to cause damage than
thatthe answers consistent with a ‘force-fullness’
the pin. The two answers (of the five possible incor-
view of force were quite compelling for students.
rect answers) consistent with this view of force are
Particularly striking are the results of the bowler
that the bowling ball exerts a greater force than the
problem. In this problemstudents might tendto
pin or thatthe ball exerts a forcewhile the pin exerts
think the bowling ball ‘has’ more force than the pin
no force at all.
since it is both heavier and it is moving. This would
Table 1 shows the percentage of students answer-
translate into answering that the bowling ball exerts
ing correctly for each of these six problems. Table 2
a greater force than the pin, which exerts a lesser
shows the overallpercentage of students giving
force or noforce at all. All incorrect answers (except
answers consistent with a ‘force-fullness’ view of
for a single response on the post-test) were of this
force for these six problems. Table 3 shows what
type for this problem on both the pre-test and the
percentage of incorrect answers the ‘force-fullness’
post-test. That a ‘force-fullness’ conception is so
answers represent. Thus, for example, table 2 shows
compelling to students onthis problem may explain
that onthepre-test, 46% of the students gave
its exceptional difficulty, as only 5% answered the
answersfor the stock cars problem which were
question correctly after a full year of traditional high
consistent with the view of force as an innate or
school physics instruction. Thus the diagnostic test
acquired property. Table 3 shows that these particu-
lar incorrect answers represent 56% of all incorrect data support the hypothesis that the great majority

Table 3. Percentage of incorrect answers consistent

Table 1. Percentage correct for the six ’force-fullness’ with a concept of force as a property of objects
problems ( n= 78). ( n = 78).

Pre-test (YO) Post-test (Yo) Pre-test (YO) Post-test (Yo)

Stock cars 18 27 Stock cars 56 79
Stationary boxes 10 32 Stationary boxes 60 68
Office
17 chairs 44 Office chairs 92 93
Steel blocks 12 51 Steel blocks 88 82
Bowler 1 5 Bowler 100 99
Pulling block A 29 47 85 Pulling block A 71
Total 14 33 Total 79 85
of students have a conception of force as a property
of objects, as the great majority gave answers con-
sistent with this conception. Further, traditional
instruction seems to have had a disappointingly low
impact on this conception for these students.
Students’ concept of force: the importance of
the third law
The above results indicate that thelow scores on the
post-test of the multiple choice diagnostic may not
imply simply a failure to remember a verbal state-
ment of the third law but rather may indicatea
failure at adeeper conceptual level. This section will
further explore the non-Newtonian ‘force-fullness’
view of force and examine the consequences of such
a view. It is argued that if students can gain a deep
conceptual graspof Newton’s third law, they are in a
much better position to answer both qualitative and
quantitative questions involving forces,
The Newtonian view: forces arise from interactions.
Beforeproceeding to a further discussion of stu-
dents’ conceptions of force, it it helpful to consider
the Newtonian view. There are at least five ideas
important in a careful considerationof the third law
in classical mechanics which are elaborated below:
(i) A body cannot experience a force in isolation.
There cannot be a force on a body A without a
second body B to exert the force.
(ii) Closely related to the above point is the fact
that A cannot exert a force in isolation. A cannot
exert a force unless there is another body B to exert
aforce onA. We then say that AandB are
interacting. (Thus, for example, it is incorrect to say
that an astronaut punching empty space with his fist
is exerting a force since there is nothing exerting a
force back against his fist.) The attractive or repul-
sive force between two bodies arises as a result of
the action of the two bodies on each other because
they are eitherincontact or experiencebetween
them a force acting at a distance.
(iii) At all moments of time the force A exerts on
B isof exactly the same magnitude as the force B
exerts on A.
(iv) An important implication of the above point
is that neither force precedes the other force. Even
though one body might bemore ‘active’ than the
other body andthus might seem to initiate the
interaction (e.g. a bowling ball striking a pin), the
force body A exerts on body B isalways simulta-
neous with the force B exerts on A.
(v) In the interaction of A with B, the force A
exerts on B is in a direction exactly opposite to the
direction of the force which B exerts on A.
Thus, the third law can be seen to be much more
involved than one might assume from the simple
356
epigrammatic version ‘for every action there is an
equal and opposite reaction’.
Students’ view: force as an innate or acquired pro-
perty. The concept of force as embodied in the third
law and developed above does not seem to be the
naive conception of force which most high-school
students hold. Minstrell and Stimpson (1986) have
proposed that in addition to viewing forces as pushes
or pulls, students treat force as aproperty of
objects. Such student reasoninghas also been
observed instudies at the University of Surrey
(Watts 1983) and at the University of Massachusetts
(Brown and Clement 1987b, Brown 1987). Minstrell
and Stimpson (1986) list such factors as an object’s
weight, motion, activity or strength as important to
students in determining an object’s force. Maloney
(1984) discusses various properties such as these
which contribute to the students’ decision of which
object exerts the greater force.
A student holding the view of force as a property
might considerheavy,
a fast-moving, strong
Americanfootball player to have agreatdeal of
‘force-fullness’. This football player would be able
to exertmore force onother people or objects
‘having’ less force than they would be able to exert
back. This is in directcontrast to the Newtonian
concept in which a force does not exist except as
arising from the interaction of two objects, the
forces on eachobject being equivalent in magni-
tude.
Consequencesofthe viewof force as a property.
There is some reason to believe that a naive view of
force as a property sabotagesbothconceptual
understanding and quantitative problemsolving abi-
lity. In thearea of qualitativeconceptualunder-
standing,a well known failure of students to
consider forces as arising from interactions comes
from their attempts toanswer questions which draw
out an ‘impetus’ conception-objects ‘having’ force
which keeps them in motion (Clement 1982,
Fischbein et a1 1987).
Hellerand Reif (1984) presentevidence that if
students treated forces as arising only from interac-
tions, this would also aid quantitative problem solv-
ing. In this study, university physics students were
given guidance in constructing accurate motion and
force descriptions while solving problems.Those
given guidance arrived at the correct final answer to
the quantitative problems 92% of the time, versus
only 21% of the time for the control group given no
guidance. Since much of the guidance in construct-
ing forcedescriptionscentredaround considering
forces as interactions, this indicates that such a
conception of force would aid problem solving if
internalised by students.
The importance of the third law. Since the concept
of forces arising from interactions between objectsis
at the heart of the third law, it seems from these
considerations that acareful andextendedtreat-
ment of Newton’s third law may be quite important
in an introductory physics course. In teaching
Newton’s laws, nowhere else does such a conception
of force play an integral role. The first law is con-
cerned with the motion of single objects in the
absence of net forces. The second law is concerned
with the motion of single objects under the influence
of forces of often unknown origin.
It is in studying the third law that students must
come to grips with the conception of forces arising
solely from interactions. If students acquire a deep
understanding of the third law, they might be less
apt to have difficulty with both quantitative prob-
lems (as demonstratedby the Heller and Reif study)
and qualitative problems such as those drawing out
the ‘impetus’ misconception in which force is viewed
as a properfy of a moving object causing it to keep
moving.
A simple solution? A possible solution is to simply
re-label students’ naive concept of force by calling it,
for example, ‘momentum’ or ‘kinetic energy’. Both
of these can be considered properties of an object,
both do depend on the object’s mass and speed, and
both can be transferred, in whole or in part, in a
collision. But this is not a satisfactory solution for at
least three reasons: (i) neither momentum nor kine-
tic energy cause motion (as many students view
force causing motion), they are simply properties of
a moving object arising as a result of the motion of
that object. (ii) Momentum and kinetic energy vary
with the frame of reference. If a student were to
simply re-label her conception of force to be, for
example, momentum, she might well ask how an
object could have a lot of force (or strength or
forcefulness) in one frame of reference and none
from anotherperspective. (iii) If a student is encour-
aged to equate momentum with her naive concep-
tion of force, she is likely to add momenta to forces
in solving problems or be confused about why it is
improper to do so.
Conceptualchange
necessary. For the above
reasons, re-labelling the student’s naive concept of
force is not a satisfactory solution to the problem of
the naive view of force as aproperty and may lead to
even greater confusion (how many times have stu-
dents used the words ‘the force of momentum’ in a
physics class?). What is necessary is a modification
of the concept itself. This modified conception of
force should involve a deep understanding (rather
than a mere memorisation) of the third law, that is,
a concept of forces arising only from interactions
between two objects rather than force as an innate
or acquired property of single objects.
Conclusion
The results of the pre-course diagnostic indicate that
high-school students enter physics classes with pre-
conceptions in thearea of Newton’s third law.
Evidence from the post-course diagnostic indicates
that these preconceptions are persistent and difficult
to overcome with traditionalinstructionaltech-
niques. The data from all three studies support the
hypothesis thatthe persistence of preconceptions
concerning the third law may result from students’
general naive view of force as a property of single
objects rather than as a relation between objects.
It has been arguedthat theconsequences of such a
view of force extendbeyondproblems explicitly
treating the third law to all problems, both quantita-
tive and qualitative, which deal with forces.This
suggests that ideas concerning the third law, which
makes explicit the relational quality of forces, may
play a more importantrole than is ordinarily granted
in teaching. Helping studentsdevelopa mature
conception of force will undoubtedly involve an
extended and multi-pronged approach, but innova-
tive strategiesfor teaching the third law should
comprise a significant part of the unit on forces and
Newton’s laws ratherthan receiving the cursory
treatment which the third law has usually been
afforded.
References
Brown D 1987 Using analogies and examples to help
students overcome misconceptions in physics: a
comparison of two teaching strategies EdD thesis
University of Massachusetts
Brown D and Clement J 1987a Misconceptions
concerning Newton’s law of action and reaction: the
underestimated importance of the third law Proc. 2nd
Int. Seminar, Misconceptions and Educational
Strategies in Science and Mathematics vol. I11 ed.
J D Novak pp 39-53
Brown D and Clement J 1987b Overcoming
misconceptions in mechanics: a comparison of two
example-based teaching strategies Conf. American
Educational Research Association (Washington, DC)
Clement J 1982 Students’ preconceptions in introductory
mechanics A m . J . Phys. 50 66-71
Fischbein E, Stavy R and Ma-Naim H 1987 The
psychological structure of naive impetus conceptions
Proc. 2nd Int. Seminar, Misconceptions and
Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics vol.
111 ed. J D Novak pp 143-51
Heller J I and Reif F 1984 Prescribing effective human
problem-solving processes: problem description in
physics Cognition and Instruction 1 177-216
Maloney D P 1984 Rule-governed approaches to
physics-Newton’s third law Phys. Educ. 19 37-42
Minstrel1 J and Stimpson G 1986 Students’ beliefs in
mechanics: cognitive process frameworks Proc. 5th
Conf. on Reasoning and Higher Education (Boise, ID)
357
Terry C and Jones G 1986 Alternative frameworks:
Newton’s third law and conceptual change Eur. J . Sci.
Educ. 8 291-8
Solution: swirling tea leaves
(Problem on page 338)
This phenomenon arises from the viscosity of the
water. Next to the wall of the vessel, including the
bottom, exists a ‘boundary layer’ in which the
velocity of the water increases from zero at the
wall to a value corresponding to the outer surface
of a ‘core’ of water which rotates approximately
freely within. After some time, the core rotates
like a solid body with a constant angular velocity.
The free water surface of the core assumes the
shape of a paraboloid of revolution, deepest at the
centre and rising with increasing radius. This
provides the radial pressure gradient necessary to
maintain the circular motion of all annuli of water
beneath, analysed mathematically in the figure.
(The centre of the surface is the origin for y . )
Within the boundary layer near the bottom of the
vessel, the angular velocity is less than within the
core above. But the pressure, due to the weight of
water above, is greater towards the vessel walls
and is least in the centre like a cyclone. The radial
pressure gradient is thus larger than that required
to maintain the reduced circular motion and causes
the water to spiral inwards, transporting the heavy
tea leaves to the centre of the bottom. The
velocity vectors at various depths are illustrated
hypothetically in the sections.
When the leaves have been deposited the water
358
Watts D M 1983 A study of schoolchildren’s alternative
frameworks of the concept of force Eur. J . Sci. Educ.
5 217-30
~ ~~
is then directed upwards into the core. This
secondary flow is similar to that induced in
rotating blinding holes recently illustrated by the
axial flow of gas induced in a tubular aircraft
propeller shaft; warm gas travelling along the shaft
can transmit enough heat to prevent the nose cone
from icing (Owen 1987).
If both the vessel and water rotate at the same
angular velocity the tea leaves are thrown towards
the wall but they return to the centre if the vessel
is held stationary. This may easily be verified
experimentally.
Other methods of study include the use of
aluminium powder, with a little detergent to aid
wetting, illuminated perpendicularly to the viewing
direction. Interest in this kind of problem arises
from such considerations as the effect of the lunar
gravitational torque acting on the liquid core of
the Earth, the formation of the red spot on Jupiter
or the deposition of silt in river bends. Baker
(1966, 1968) provides a number of excellent
laboratory methods for further study and cites the
effect as being responsible for propelling a
poached egg to the centreof the bottom of a
swirling pan of boiling water. The theory of
vorticity is perhaps best approached by a standard
textbook such as that of Massey (1983)”under
some conditions it is possible to observe an
increase in angular velocity with decreasing radius
like a tornado. The latter conditions can be
obtained by stirring a bucket of hot water (of
reduced viscosity) with a spoon at its perimeter
when floating objects dropped into the centre
rotate with a greater angular velocity. This tea-leaf
problem provides just a fleeting glimpse of a vast
subject, described in more detail by Drazin (1987).
Discussions with Dr John Hougtonand D r Keith
Scrimshaw are gratefully acknowledged.
Guy S M Moore
References
Baker D J Jr 1966 Demonstrations of fluid flow in a
rotating system, part 1 Am. J . Phys. 34, 647-52
-1968 Demonstrations of fluid flow in a rotating
system, part 2 Am. J . Phys. 36 980-6
Drazin P 1987 Fluid Mechanics Phys. Educ. 22 350-4
Massey B S 1983 Mechanics of FIuidr 5th edn (New
York: Van Nostrand) (see chapters ‘Circulation and
Vorticity’ and ‘Free Vortex’)
Owen M 1987 Preventing frozen noses Phys. Bull. 38
445-6