See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317098967

Pre-service Elementary Teachers'

Understanding on Force and Motion

Presentation May 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29773.64486

CITATIONS READS

0 6

3 authors, including:

Subuh Anggoro Ari Widodo

Universitas Muhammadiyah Purwokerto Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
7 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 36 PUBLICATIONS 113 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Biology Teachers View project

Learning Progression and Conceptual Change Pre-service Elementary Teachers' with Cognitive
Conflict View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Subuh Anggoro on 24 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Pre-service Elementary Teachers Understanding on Force and Motion
S Anggoro1,2, A Widodo3 and A Suhandi4
1
Doctor of Basic Education Study Program, Postgraduate School, Universitas
Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung 40154, Indonesia
2
Teacher Training of Elementary Education Study Program, Universitas
Muhammadiyah Purwokerto, Jl. Dukuhwaluh Kembaran, Banyumas 53182,
Indonesia
3
Biology Education Department, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr.
Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung 40154, Indonesia
4
Physics Education Department, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr.
Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung 40154, Indonesia
Email : subuhanggoro@students.upi.edu

Abstract. The research is done to investigate the understanding on the subtopic of Force and
Motion that exists among the pre-services elementary teachers of the Universitas Muhammadiyah
Purwokerto (UMP). The participants were 71 studentss 6th and 77 studentss 2nd semester.
Research instrument consisted of background information of respondents, belief of preconception
and 8 questions that relates to Force and Motion with four alternative answers and their reasons.
Descriptive statistics such as percentage and bar chart were used for analyzing the data collected.
Research findings many participants have some misunderstand or misconception on free fall
object, rest object, buoyant force and gravitation. This research recommends learning progression
pre-services teachers to be exposed with conflict cognitive strategy for science conceptual
change.

1. Introduction
Most of primary school students and teachers have no science concepts understood sufficiently
[1,2]. Eventhough both of them have same concept misunderstood or naive conception [3,4]. This is
because many primary school teachers are ill-equipped to teach conceptual science since they often
hold views of science concepts that are in conflict with accepted scientific theory [1].
Most students begin to learn science contents with preconceptions that differ from scientific
conceptions [5,6,7,8]. Initial ideas held by students are very difficult to change by teacher despite
being presented with scientific concepts [9,10,11,12,13,14]. Teacher should identify student
understand before conducting formal teaching so that their misunderstand or misconception can be
changed to scientific concept after the formal teaching and learning process [1].
To build an effective model of teaching and learning for science teaching should begin by
exploring or identifying difficulties and misunderstanding faced by students [15]. The objectives of
this study are to (1) identify the pre-service elementary understanding on Force and Motion; and (2)
map their answers and reasons on Force and Motion.

2. Methods
2.1. Participants
One hundred dan forty eight pre-service teachers, seventy one from sixth semester, dan seventy
seven second semester, participated in the study. One hundred and twenty five studentss (sixty from
the sixth semester, and sixty five from second semester) were female, and the rest were male (eleven
from sixth semester, and twelve from second semester. One hundred and sixteen students had general
high school background (fifty seven from the sixth semester, and fifty nine from second semester),
twenty nine from vocational high school (eighteen from the sixth semester, and eleven from second
semester) and the rest passed Islamic religion school (all from second semester).
2.2. Research procedures
Multiple choice questions have been written based on the concept boundaries and in accordance with
the extensive related literature on Force and Motion subtopic such as forces, gravity, free fall, and
buoyant, to identify pre-service elementary teachers conceptions understanding. Alternative
conceptions or misunderstand or misconceptions were identified according to pre-service elementary
teachers answers and their reasons. Participants completed the test as individuals and they were not
required to write their names to assure anonymity. The survey administration lasted approximately
2025 min. Descriptive statistics were conducted to analyze the pre-service elementary teachers
preconceptions, their answered and reasoned.

Table 1. Distributions of items according to subjects

on Force and Motion diagnostic test
Subject Items
Free fall object Q1, Q2
Rest object Q3, Q4, Q5
Buoyant force Q6, Q7
Gravitation Q8

3. Result and Discussion

3.1. Free fall object
These descriptive results interpreted pre-service elementary teachers understand on Force and
Motion. To explore the understand among the participants, the percentages of the students who
misunderstand or misconcept and their answer on free fall object are reported in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Pre-service elementary teachers

preconception on free fall

Result indicates that most pre-service elementary teachers have misconceptions on free fall.
Studentss believe that a heavier weight causes a greater acceleration in free fall (i.e., heavier objects
fall faster) or that gravity varies significantly over a few meters [16,17,18,19]. The heavier objects
will be pulled by gravity with a greater force than the lighter ones. However, the accelerations caused
by these gravitational pulls will be exactly the same for each object and their speed of falling will be
equal at a given height, so they will all hit the ground simultaneously [19].

Table 2. Pre-service elementary teachers reasoned of Table 3. Pre-service elementary teachers reasoned of
free fall object in the earth free fall object on vacuumed container
Category No Reason 6th (%) 2nd (%) Category No Reason 6th (%) 2nd (%)
Heavy objects fall at a greater speed than light Objects drift caused no air pressured and no
1 42 60 1 45 -
objects gravitation
2 No gravitation - 43
2 Object fall speed affected gravitation 19 -
Misconception Heavy objects fall at a greater speed than light
3 Object weigt affected gravitation 8 10 3 - 29
objects
Object fall affected by their weight dan size and; 4 Marble weight heavier than bird hair 5 -
Misconception 4 light objects fall at a greater speed than heavy - 15 5 Marble pressure higher than bird hair 5 -
objects Marble have heavier mass and less surface width
1 14 7
5 Object fall speed affected by their weight 8 - than bird hair
Light objects fall at a greater speed than heavy 2 Objects drift caused no air and light object - 7
6 4 5 Misunderstand Object fall needed air as medium, if no air
objects 3 - 7
pressure object will drifting
7 Object fall speed affected their mass 4 -
No air no gravitation and make object drift, if it
1 Objects have mass 4 - 4 5 -
have air pressured both of object fall same time
Misunderstand 2 Object fall speed affected by their mass - 5 Object fall affected gravitation, both of object fall
3 Object fall speed affected air pressure 8 - 1 18 -
same time
Less Understand
1 Object fall speed have no affected their weight 4 - 2 Caused gravitation 9 -
Less Understand
2 Matter object is same so fall at same time - 5 3 Object fall affected earth gravitation - 7
 Pre-service elementary teachers have some reasons that made their misunderstand or
misconcepton on free fall. Most of them believed that heavy objects fall at a greater speed than light
objects. Otherwise someone argued that light objects fall at a greater speed than heavy objects The
object fall speed affected their size, mass or weight. Thus object weight affected gravitation.
There were some misunderstading even misconception on object fall in vacuumed container.
Many of them thought objects drift caused no air pressure and no gravitation. They argued that object
fall affected earth gravitation. Besides, without it all object would drifted. Some studentss have
consistent misconception which anywhere heavy objects fall at a greater speed than light objects, even
outer space. Some paticipants which have correct answered gave some reason. Anyone thought that
object fall affected gravitation and all object hit a ground simultaneously. The other argued object
drift affected no air pressure and gravitation.
3.2. Rest object
To explore the understand among the participants, the percentages of the studentss who
misunderstand or misconcept on rest object are reported at Figure 2.

Figure 2. Pre-service elementary teachers

preconception on rest object

Table 4. Pre-service elementary teachers reasoned of forces Table 5.. Pre-service elementary teachers reasoned of
direction action-reaction forces

Category No Reason 6th (%) 2nd (%) Category No Reason 6th (%) 2nd (%)
Misconception 1 Horse has moved, wall have not 5 9 Misconception 1 Horse has moved, wall have not 5 9
Horse has been given forces to jockey and moves, Horse has been given forces to jockey and moves,
2 - 9 2 - 9
but wall have not ones but wall have not ones
Misunderstand 1 Man have been given forces to object 55 - Misunderstand 1 Man have been given forces to object 55 -
Horse has moved, wall have not but push forces Horse has moved, wall have not but push forces
2 23 - 2 23 -
has been given to wall has been given to wall
3 There was push forces 5 - 3 There was push forces 5 -
Horse has received pull forces easily, but wall Horse has received pull forces easily, but wall
4 - 9 4 - 9
have not ones have not ones
Wall have given forces and Beni have muscle Wall have given forces and Beni have muscle
forces that makes weight forces. The horse has forces that makes weight forces. The horse has
5 - 9 5 - 9
been received forces from jockey and make it run been received forces from jockey and make it run
or stop or stop
Jockey has received up forces from horses when it Jockey has received up forces from horses when it
6 - 9 6 - 9
run but Beni has not one from wall run but Beni has not one from wall
7 Man have done pull dan push force 5 - 7 Man have done pull dan push force 5 -
When horse has not moved, jockey received When horse has not moved, jockey received
8 5 - 8 5 -
forces. forces.
Wall have not moved when man pulled it. Jockey Wall have not moved when man pulled it. Jockey
9 - 9 9 - 9
has been received forces when the horses ran has been received forces when the horses ran
Less Understand 1 Horse has moved, but jockey have not one - 9 Less Understand 1 Horse has moved, but jockey have not one - 9
Forces has been given from horse and wall Forces has been given from horse and wall
2 because they have more weight or bigger than - 9 2 because they have more weight or bigger than - 9
man man
Beni has been received reaction forces from wall Beni has been received reaction forces from wall
3 - 9 3 - 9
when he push it when he push it
There were reaction forces which caused push There were reaction forces which caused push
Understand 1 5 - Understand 1 5 -
forces from man forces from man
Both activities have shown the push dan pull Both activities have shown the push dan pull
2 - 9 2 - 9
forces forces
There were Newton forces. The first is second There were Newton forces. The first is second
3 - 9 3 - 9
Newton Law and second is third ones. Newton Law and second is third ones.
 Result on Fig. 2 indicates that more half sixth semester preservice elementary teachers have
misunderstand or misconceptions on rest object, thus were only quarter in second semester. Kruger
and Palacio investigated British primary school teachers understanding of the concept of force [20].
Results of the study revealed that they were uncertain about what could be considered a force. Many
of them could not recognize that a table exerts an upward force on a body placed on it. More than half
of the teachers were not aware that weight is gravitational force acting on bodies. Finding resultant
force via vector addition was something new for those teachers. Allen explained that the table is
pushing up on the book in reaction to the books weight, which balances everything out so there is no
up/down movement [21].
Result on Table 4 indicates that all participants have misunderstand on forces direction. Many of
them belief that only pull forces and it reaction happened. They not understand about contact force
and field force, their reaction and direction [1].
Participants have some reasons that made their misunderstand even misconcepton on rest object
(see Table 5). Most of them believed that there was no force. Someone argued that book have mass
and/or weight. It has been affected gravitation and weight force. One students argued there barried
the table, even gravitation received the situation and make weight force. Others thought object
received pressure forced.

Table 6 Pre-service elementary teachers reasoned of rest book on the table

Category No Reason 6th (%) 2nd (%)
Misconception 1 Rest object have no force 18 50
Misunderstand 1 Book have mass 24 4
2 Rest object just not moving - -
3 Gravitation received rest object and make weight force 24 -
4 Book have weight - 4
5 It barried the table 6 -
6 Object drift if no weight force - 4
Less Understand 1 Object received pressure force - 4
2 Weight force have opposed force (F=0) 29 -
3 Rest object gave weight force - 17
4 Rest object have weight force - 8
5 Every object have force and reaction one - 4
There were contact force with table and book,
Understand 1 then weigt force and reaction makes book not - 4
moved

As illustrates in Table 6, many participants believed man have given forces to object such as
horse and wall. Thus, horse moved and gave reaction force to jockey. Man has not received it from
wall. Otherwise, some one correct answered but have less understand. He/she thought horse has
moved but jockey have not ones. Anyone has believed that forces has been given from horse and wall
because they have more weight or bigger than man.
3.3. Buoyant Force
To explore the understand among the participants, the percentages of the studentss who
misunderstand or misconcept on buoyant force are reported in Fig. 3. Result indicates that most sixth
semester preservice elementary teachers and half second semester have misunderstand even
misconceptions on buoyant force. That is, the majority of students first think of large bodies and deep
water as the spatial background of the situation of something floating and sinking [24].

Figure 3. Pre-service elementary teacher preconception on buoyant force

 To explore the correctness among the participants, the percentages of the studentss who
answer on buoyant force are reported in Fig. 6 and 7. Understanding properties of matter is of great
importance, as these are considered foundational in science. One of the properties relevant to the
substances bodies are made of is buoyancy [25]. Everyday observations of big objects floating and
small objects sinking raise questions in their minds to which they provide answers and explanations
directed by their intuitive naive beliefs and perceptual experiences [26]. A study by Kallery examined
the impact of the teaching strategy employed on the growth of childrens understanding of floating
and sinking [27].

Table 7. Pre-service elementary teachers reasoned of Table 8. Pre-service elementary teachers reasoned of
buoyant forces floating and sinking
Category No Reason 6th (%) 2nd (%) Category No Reason 6th (%) 2nd (%)
Misconception 1 Object sink or float affected plate position 6 - Misconception 1 Object sink or float affected their weight - 6
2 Heavy object have weight mass - 5 2 Opposite pressured - 6
3 Object mass heavier than water - 5 3 Object sink affected their weight - 6
4 C plate more heavier than the others - 5 4 Object sink below surface - 6
5 A and B position have less weight than C 6 - When object missed the equilibrium, it may be
Object sink or float affected plate position and 5 - 6
6 - 5 floated or sinked
object matter 6 The object would be sinked - 6
Object sink or float affected their width surface. Object sink or float affected their position and
1 44 - Misunderstand 1 33 6
The smaller one could be sinked even light direction
2 Object sink or float affected treatment 11 -
Misunderstand 3 A and B position have more space for air 11 - 2 Object sink or float affected their force direction 6 11
4 Plate have gravitation - 5 Object sinked on 2, floated on 1 if in surface, not
A and B have done pressured to water, so they 3 - 6
5 6 - floating and sinking 3,4 and 5
have not sinked Float moving have shown up direction to surface
6 All plates have the same light weight so floated - 5 Less Understand 1 61 -
and sinking by down
Plates form are round that makes them sinked in 2 Object floated 1,2,3 and 4 and sinked on 5 - 6
7 - 5
all position Object sinked on 5, floated on 1 and 2, beetween
8 Wider surface makes plate floated - 5 3 - 6
on 3 and 4
9 A and B plate were floated dan C was sinked - 5 4 Object sinked have shown 3,4,5 position - 6
10 The wider surface have would object not sinked - 5 5 More depth more pressured and densities - 6
Object sink or float affected plate position and Object sink if in bottom, float if in surface, not
Less Understand 1 6 11 6 - 6
their width surface floating and sinking in submarine
The densities of A and B plates lighter than water 7 Object floated in 1 and sinked in 4 dan 5 - 6
2 - 11
density, but C plate heavier one
3 Stand object would sinked easily 11 - 8 Object sinked on 4 and 5, and floated on 1,2 and 3 - 6
Object sink or float affected plate position, C 9 Object sinked on 3, 4 and 5, and floated on 1,2 - 6
4 - 3
plate sinked caused gave pressure to water
5 Hydrostatic force received water to object - 5
The object pressure affected their width surface;
6 P= F/A when P is pressured (pascal or N/m2); F is - 5
force (N); A is contact width (m2).
7 C plate have wider surface than others that makes sinked- 5
There is air pressured below B plate and above
8 - 5
A one

As illustrated in the Table 7 and 8 there were many error reason on buoyant forces. Research
studies over the past decades have identified different types of non-scientific explanations for why
objects float and sink [27]. One type of explanation is anthropomorphic. Piaget found that children
aged four to six may regard floating as a conscious or moral necessity (it is the right thing to do) or
explain it in terms of cleverness the boat is cleverer than the stone [28]. Piaget and Inhalder
reported that young childrens explanations often focus on a single dimension and relate an objects
floating or sinking either to its size or to its weight: heavy bodies sink while light bodies float, small
bodies float while big ones sink and vice versa [29].
3.4. Gravitation
To explore the understanding among the participants, the percentages of the studentss preconception
and their answered on buoyant force are reported in Figure 8. Result indicates that most second
semester preservice elementary teachers and more forty percent sixth semester have misunderstand
even misconceptions on gravitation. It has long been known that studentss have difficulty with
concepts that involve motions in space, reference points from Earth, and why objects appear to move
as they do in the sky [30]. Since the weight of an object is the force it experiences due to gravity,
weight can change depending on where the object is; on the other hand, its mass can never change
without changing the object itself in some way [31].
As illustrated in the Table 9, many students have misperception on gravitation even correct
answered. There are clear that most of the studentss surveyed response could not succeed in
explaining why it happen. In other words, correct or incorrect with a statement does not provide
evidence that a students understands a concept [30]. As a rule, incorrect on the inventory are more
informative than correct choices [32]. The commonsense alternatives to the Newtonian concepts are
commonly labeled as misconceptions [33]. These commonsense beliefs should be regarded as
reasonable hypotheses grounded in everyday experience [33].

Table 9. Pre-service elementary teachers reasoned on

gravitation
Category No Reason 6th (%) 2nd (%)
Object in the moon have no mass because there
Misconception 1 - 8
no air and gravity
2 No air no gravity 6 -
Object in the moon have been lighter than the
Misunderstand 1 - 8
earth because there no gravity
2 Object in the moon have been lighter than the
earth because there no gravity and alumunium - 4
more weight than zinc
3 Gravity affected object mass or weight - 4
Less Understand 1 Earth gravitation more bigger than moon 94 -
Object in the moon have been lighter than the
2 - 40
earth
Object in the moon have been lighter than the
3 - 12
earth because there little gravitation
The alumunium cubic volume moon have been
4 lighter than zinc and moon gravitation have been - 12
smaller than earth
1 The alumunium mass lighter than zinc and little
Understand - 4
gravitation in the moon
2 Moon gravitation has only one sixth the earth and
Figure 4. Pre-service elementary teachers alumunium density lighter than zinc
- 4
preconception on gravitation 3
Object heavy or light affected their weight,
- 4
matter and gravity

Many primary school teachers are ill-equipped to teach conceptual science since they often hold
views of science concepts that are in conflict with accepted scientific theory [34,35]. Osborne and
Freyberg have pointed out 'the doubtful value of teaching complex ideas based on faulty foundations'
and 'the importance of the teacher's understanding of those ideas' [36]. It is also unfortunate that many
of our elementary teachers are not required to take a sufficient number of credits in the sciences
(unless they are in a science concentration) yet are still expected to teach science [30].
The process of bringing studentss misconceptions to scientific accuracy is a long and arduous
process that requires breaking down old understandings and building new conceptual understandings
through processes that include uncovering students ideas and building a conceptual bridge from
where studentss are to where they need to be [37,38,39]. Kelley and Sneider suggestsed that this
process requires assessment probes to move studentss forward in their understandings [39].
Young childrens processes of conceptual change, which occur in an instructional context and in
the environment in which a cognitive conflict can be established, happen mostly in social interaction
with other peers and the teacher. The conditions that facilitate or hinder the cognitive conflict, or in
some other ways affect the conceptual reorganization, can be either internal or collaborative factors,
which are continuously involved in the process of reorganization of everyday experiences [40].
Cognitive conflict can be defined as the imbalance created when newly acquired knowledge
contradicts existing knowledge [41]. In terms of Piaget assimilation-disequilibrium-accommodation
theory, cognitive conflicti.e., difficulty in assimilating new (conflicting) knowledge into existing
cognitive schemascreates an unpleasant state of disequilibrium; the need to resolve this
disequilibrium prompts the learner to accommodate the new knowledge, either by altering existing
schemas or by developing new ones [42]. While Piaget developed his ideas to explain normal
cognitive development in early childhood, cognitive conflict has been employed deliberately as a
teaching tool for almost three decades, and specifically as a means of promoting conceptual change in
mathematics and science education [43,44,45].
Conflict resolution is a crucial stage in the cognitive conflict process, without which new
knowledge cannot be acquired. Chinn and Brewer said,
When teachers attempt to use anomalous data to foster conceptual change, they may fail because students have several
different ways to respond to the data other than theory change. A teacher could use the framework of alternative responses to
try to anticipate how students might react to anomalous data[46]
Moreover, it will be helpful for a teacher to understand how students experience anomalous data,
how students feel when they experience cognitive conflict, and how those experiences are related to
their final responses, which Chinn and Brewer identified as taxonomy.
Since 1990s, cognitive conflict based instructions have been extensively used in science
education. Several studies concluded that that cognitive conflict has an important/positive effect on
conceptual change [47,48]. Lee et. al. are insisting the need for cognitive conflict in order to
conceptual change takes place[47]. Pintrich et. al. suggested that motivational constructs should be the
potential mediators of the conceptual change process [49]. Sinatra and Pitrich and Anggoro et. al. also
argued that conceptual change in science learning depends on not only cognitive factors such as the
recognition of conflict, but also affective, metacognitive, and/or motivational factors [50,51].
To produce conceptual change, collaborative discussion that encourages thestudents to
synthesize their views and draw relationships of causes and effects, compare and summarize is seen as
important [52]. Thus for the childrens conceptual change process the discussions held with teacher
seemed to be the most significant. The causes for the flotation and different properties ofthe testing
objects were reasoned about several times during instruction in collaborative discussion between the
children and teacher, but only a few times in peer interaction..
Reasoning and its progression in elementary school students, the extent to which elementary
school studentss understand on Force and Motion as complex systems and whether their
understanding changes as they progress to upper grades, have yet to be elucidated fully [53]. Lehrer
and Schauble believed that students exhibit variation in their reasoning and so identifying studentss
to strictly one level is not very common [54]. Alonzo and Steedle found that students ideas about
force and motion do not always belong to the same level for assessment questions that targeted the
same concept in different contexts [55]. If this is true, the idea of defining learning progression as
having clear-cut levels may be problematic. Gotwals and Songer found that the same studentss can
demonstrate different levels of reasoning depending on specific questions [56].
Schwarz et. al. were developed an learning progression for integrating the elements of modelling
practice with meta-modelling knowledge [57]. They illustrated and document what kinds of
performances and understandings in modelling were possible with fifth and sixth graders. The
modelling levels are organised according to the criteria of how students constructed and used models,
of what students considered important to capture in models and of whether students viewed models
as useful for advancing their own knowledge as well as helping communicate with others[57].
4. Conclusions
Many participants have some misunderstood or misconception conception on free fall object, rest
object, buoyant force and gravitation. According to this study, analysis of the students understanding
on Force and Motion is important in terms of developing teaching and supporting the students
knowledge construction. However, the process of conceptual change seems to be varying and context
dependent. If students become familiar with the aspects of the phenomena as early as possible, the
cognitive conflicts in the instructional settings produce new ways of looking at the phenomenon.This
research recommends learning progression pre-services teachers of UMP to be exposed with conflict
cognitive strategy for their science conceptual change.
5. References
[1] Halim L, Yong T Kia, and Meerah T S Mohd 2014 Creative Edu., 5, 1032-1042
[2] Ylmaz H and ava P Huyugzel 2008 Eura. J of Math., Sci.& Tech. Edu., 2008, 4, 1, 45-54
[3] Abd-El-Khalick F, Bell R L, Lederman N G 1998 Sci. Edu., 82, 417-436
[4] Dogan N, and Abd-El-Khalick F 2008 J. of Res. in Sci. Teach., 45(10), 10831112
[5] Driver R, Guesne E, and Tiberghien, A 1985 Childrens ideas in science. (Milton Keynes,: Open
University Press)
[6] Kwon J S and Oh K S 1988 J. of the Korean Assoc.for Res. in Sci. Edu., 8, 5772
[7] Kwon J S, and Lee Y J 1993 J. of the Korean Assoc. for Res.in Sci. Edu., 13, 310316
[8] Pfundt H and Duit R 1994 Bibliography Studentss alternative framework and science education (4th ed)
Kiel, Germany: IPN.
[9] Clough E E and Driver R 1985 Phys. Edu., 20, 176182
[10] Hammer D 1996 Am. J. of Phys., 64, 13161325
[11] Osborne R J, Bell B.F. and Gilbert J K 1983 Euro. J.of Sci. Edu., 5, 114
[12] Posner G J, Strike K A, Hewson P W, and Gertzog W A 1982 Sci. Edu., 66, 211227
 [13] Tsai C C 1999 J. of Sci. Edu. and Tech., 8, 83-91
[14] Sencar S, and Eryilmaz A 2004 J. of Res.in Sci. Teach., 41, 603-616
[15] Halim A, Meerah T, and Halim L 2009 Sains Malaysiana, 38, 543-551
[16] Halloun I A,and Hestenes D 1985 Am. J. of Phys., 53, 10561065
[17] Gunstone R F, and White R T 1981 Sci. Edu., 65,291299
[18] Minstrell J 1982 Phy. Teacher, 20,1014
[19] Allen M 2010 Misconceptions in Primary Science Open University Press (Berkshire: McGraw-Hill) p 123
[20] Kruger C, Summers M and Palacio D 1990 Edu. Res., 32 (2): 83 95
[21] Allen M 2010 Misconceptions in Primary Science Open University Press (Berkshire: McGraw-Hill) p 133
[22] Trumper R,and Gorsky P 1993 J. of Res. in Sci. Teach, 30(7), 637-648
[24] Biddulph F and Osborne R 1984 Children's Questions and Science Teaching: an alternative
approach. Learning in Science Project. Working Paper No 117. Waikato University Science
Education Research Unit, Hamilton, New Zealand
[25] Kallery M 2015 Int. J. of Early Years Edu., 23, 1, 3153
[26] Kallery M 2000 Prim. Sci. Rev., 61, 1819
[27] Hsin C T, and Wu H K 2011 J. of Sci. Edu. and Tech., 20, 656666.
[28] Piaget, J. [1930] 1972. The Childs Conception of Physical Causality(Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams) p
136-137
[29] Piaget J, and Inhelder B 1958 The Growth of Logical Thinking (New York: Basic Books)
[30] Millham R A and Isabelle A D 2013 Excelsior: Lead. in Teach. and Learn.,8, 1, 13-35
[31] Allen M 2010 Misconceptions in Primary Science Open University Press (Berkshire: McGraw-Hill) p 140
[32] Martn-Blas T, Seidelb T, and Serrano-Fernndez A 2010 Euro. J. of Eng. Edu., 35, 6, 597606
[33] Hestenes D, Wells M, and Swackhamer G 1992 The Phys.Teach, 30, 141158
[34] Kruger C, and Summers M 1988 J. of Edu. for Teach. 14, 3, 259265
[35] Kruger C J 1990 Phys. Edu. 25, 86 91
[36] Osborne R, and Freyberg P 1985 Learning in Science: The Implications of Children's Science.
(Auckland: Heinneman)
[37] Keeley P, Eberle F, and Tugel J 2007 Uncovering students ideas in lifescience. Vol. 2: 25 More
formative assessment probes. (Arlington, VA:NSTA Press)
[38] Keeley Pand Harrigan R 2010 Uncovering students ideas in physicalscience, Vol. 1-45 NEW force and
motion assessment probes (Arlington, VA: NSTA Press)
[39] Keeley P and Sneider C 2012 Uncovering students ideas in astronomy: 45NEW formative assessment
probes(Arlington, VA: NSTA Press)
[40] Havu-Nuutinen S 2005 Int.J. of Sci. Edu., 27 (3): 259279
[41] Moody B 2010 Shaping the future of mathematics education. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of
The Mathematics Education Research Groupof Australasia Eds.L.Sparrow, B. Kissane and C. Hurst
(Fremantle: MERGA) pp. 422429
[42] Piaget J1985 The equilibration of cognitive structures. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press (Original
work published in 1975)
[43] Huang T H, Liu Y C, and Shiu C Y 2008 Comp.& Edu., 50,1, 6176
[44] Liu T C 2010 Edu.Tech.and Society., 13,2, 180192.
[45] Parker J 2006 Int. J. of Sci. Edu., 28,13, 15451577
[46] Chinn C A., and Brewer W F 1998 J. Res. Sci. Teach., 35, 623654
[47] Lee G, Kwon J, Park S, Kim J, Kwon H, and Park H 2003 J. of Res. in Sci. Teach., 40, 6, 585603.
[48] Thorley N R, and Treagust D F 1987 Int. J. of Sci.Edu, 9, 203216
[49] Pintrich P R, Marx R W and Boyle R A 1993 Rev.of Edu. Res., 63, 167200
[50] Sinatra GM, and Pintrich P R 2003 Intentional conceptual change Eds. Sinatra, G M, and Pintrich, P
R(Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers)pp. 1-18
[51] Anggoro S, Sopandi W, and Sholehudin M 2017 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 812 012001, pp 1-6
[52] Costa A L 1990 Teacher behaviours that promote discussion. In Research and Practice of the Discussion
Method (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas), 4578
[53] Suzuki K, Yamaguchi E, Hokayem H 2015 Procedia Soc. and Behav. Sci.167, 79 84
[54] Lehrer R, and Schauble L 2009 J.of Res. in Sci. Teach. 46, 6, 731735
[55] AlonzoA C and . Steedle J T 2009 Sci. Edu, 93, 3,389421
[56] Gotwals A W, and Songer N B 2010 Sci. Edu., 94, 259281
[57] Schwarz C V, Reiser B J, Davis E A, Kenyon L, Acher A, Fortus D, . . . Krajcik J 2009 J. of Res. in Sci.
Teach, 46, 632654

View publication stats