Overcoming Learners’ Misconceptions of Forces at Key Stage 3
Introduction
Children’s ideas of science are developed through science education, but also life experiences. These life experiences will provide learners with an idea of how the world around them works, whether this is right or wrong (Smith, diSessa, & Roschelle, 1994). Children may arrive at Key Stage 3 with deeply imbedded misconceptions of forces and motion that not only affect how they initially think about forces and motion, but also the way in which they learn. One cannot simply teach a new way of thinking without first addressing the underlying misconceptions, and challenging these views. This study focuses on one group of mixed ability year 7 students, studying the forces topic over a course of ten lessons (approximately 11 hours contact time).
A review of the literature will cover the kinds of misconceptions that students come with to Key Stage 3, and where these likely originated. It will also consider what research says about how to address misconceptions (both in general terms and specific to the forces topic), and whether or not these techniques are beneficial.
Before misconceptions can be challenged, there must first be an understanding of the types of misconceptions held about the topic in general. These can be used to inform pre-topic assessment to distinguish what, if any, misconceptions are held by the students, in order to challenge these views. An action plan will be devised to address each potential misconception, based on a review of both current and established literature. The long-term effect of these techniques will be monitored, by a post-instruction assessment (the same as the pre-instruction assessment), in addition to the end of topic test. The results of the pre- and post-instruction assessment will be analysed, to make a judgment on whether or not the techniques discussed were successful in overcoming misconceptions.
Finally, the analysed results will be discussed, and conclusions drawn from the literature and the empirical results from this study.

Background Reading
According to the work of Kibble (Kibble, 2006, p. 228), “forces will never be far from top of the list” when it comes to topics that carry significant misconceptions for students (and in many cases teachers as well). The misconceptions held by learners appear to be varied and widespread, based on the works of a number of authors. The most commonly cited misconceptions of the forces topic are: that stationary objects are not subject to a force; moving objects have a force in the direction of motion, proportional to their velocity; inanimate objects are unable to exert a force; gravity acts as a push from above, and is caused by atmosphere; and force is ‘used up’ when an object stops moving (Driver et al, 1994; Key Stage 3 National Strategy, 2003; Smith et al, 1994; Terry et al, 1985). Part of the problem is that forces are met at Primary school in terms or pushes and pulls, and are therefore intuitively associated with motion (Kibble, 2006). In addition language and definitions at primary school and in informal contexts are not so strict, and ‘force’ and ‘energy’ are interchangeable, leading to further misconceptions (Kibble, 2006).

Before we can consider how to address misconceptions, an appreciation of how they are formed and the implications of having misconceptions is needed. Misconceptions are thought to be formed through life experiences; the learner tries to make sense of how the world works (Smith, diSessa, & Roschelle, 1994). It is not simply a case of ‘replacing’ incorrect models with correct ones, as “cognitive structures can embrace both expert concepts and misconceptions” (Smith, diSessa, & Roschelle, 1994, p. 21). The implication of which is that the learner may shift between the two concepts (a ‘physicist view’ and a previously held misconception), potentially within the same problem solving episode (Smith, diSessa, & Roschelle, 1994). The problem then is that the learner is reluctant, or unable to ‘give up’ the pre-conceived idea of a phenomenon, and simply memorises the physicist view without making cognitive links with it (Terry, Jones, & Hurford, 1985).

The most cited, and common strategy for addressing misconceptions, is that of cognitive conflict leading to a conceptual change. This constructivist approach of building on prior knowledge and understanding is highly regarded (Smith, diSessa, & Roschelle, 1994). Smith et al also discuss the commonly held view of misconceptions being the result of students’ experiences in the real world, in direct contrast to the more recent, but less accepted view that misconceptions may occur once the student is asked to consider a system in a given scientific context (Rowlands, Graham, Berry, & McWilliam, 2005). This latter view is in the initial stages of research, and offers no concrete evidence at this time.

Explicit teaching is required early on in secondary science (Key Stage 3 National Strategy, 2003) which builds on the knowledge gained from primary school. One method for addressing misconceptions is to begin with the understanding of the static model (e.g. a book at rest on a table) in order to understand motion (Millar, 2008), and an appreciation that a stationary object is a ‘special case’ of motion (Terry, Jones, & Hurford, 1985). Without the qualitative understanding of the forces at play on a stationary object (Millar, 2008), a quantitative understanding of Newton’s first law will not be appreciated, and holds “little conceptual significance” to the student, the statement is merely regurgitated (Terry, Jones, & Hurford, 1985, p. 164). The converse view that one can “easily understand and correct misconceptions” (Bello, 2006, p. 38) through mathematical description of a system has also been discussed, but this does not hold true of other research whereby conceptual change comes about from a realisation that the ‘gut’ response is inadequate (Rowlands, Graham, Berry, & McWilliam, 2005, p. 60). Bello’s work merely states the misconceptions consistent with Driver, and proves them wrong mathematically, with no empirical educational evidence.

Demirci (DEMİRCİ, 2003) discusses a web-based tutorial to aid in student understanding and problem-solving abilities, leading to a conceptual change. The study showed no significant results, but is not the only example of using interactive software to enhance understanding of forces and motion. Dede et al have developed virtual software based on constructivist pedagogy, to immerse students into multisensory abstract concepts, which would otherwise be unavailable to them (Dede, Salzman, & Loftin, 1996). Although an interesting concept, creating “motivation and concentration conducive to mastering complex, abstract material” (Dede, Salzman, & Loftin, 1996, p. 12), the work fails to discuss any results of using the software, and despite being 16-years-old, the ‘on-going research’ has not been updated, and any citations of the work refer to the ‘cyber-sickness’ discussed as a potential drawback.

There are several successful strategies commented on in the literature to bring about conceptual change. These could begin with diagnostic questioning techniques to identify prior knowledge and any underlying misconceptions, and providing feedback from the diagnostic assessment to enhance motivation and learning in students (Key Stage 3 National Strategy, 2003). The conceptual change can be the result of cognitive conflict, use of models and/or analogies, and bridging techniques. The latter is discussed with particular reference to the misconception that an object at rest has no forces acting upon it, whereby a bridging step can be used (box suspended from a spring, box resting on a spring, box at rest on a table) to lead to conceptual change (Terry, Jones, & Hurford, 1985). This technique creates a conflict, which gradually explores the consequence of the misconception, and promotes the meaningful learning by connecting new and prior knowledge as discussed by Limon (Limón, 2001, p. 358).

The use of models and analogies to create a conceptual change are discussed widely. For example, due to the abstract nature of gravity, tension and friction in particular, where only the effects are observed, analogies may be required (Key Stage 3 National Strategy, 2003). Models and analogies are used to help children visualise concepts, in addition to help simplify complex situations, which is accepted practice (Millar, 2008). Kibble discusses the use of “force-spectacles” to help children to simplify an everyday situation to a model with only the relevant forces (Kibble, 2006, p. 229). He goes on to discuss the need to allow children the opportunity to create their own models from their experiences, and to share the limitations of the model with the learners in addition to an appreciation of why the model has value (Kibble, 2008). Learners must be afforded ample discussion time, one to one with the class teacher and in small groups. Through this, they can begin to talk through their ideas in a way that doesn’t make them feel exposed or vulnerable (Liversidge, Cochrane, Kerfoot, & Thomas, 2009). A number of AFL (assessment for learning) strategies can be incorporated to allow for this.

Some strategies used to create cognitive conflict are discussed in literature including introducing anomalous data that is inconsistent with the misconception (for example heavier objects fall faster), and analogies to guide change (for example box on a spring), but for these to be effective there must be a willingness to change the previously held view (Limón, 2001). Without this willingness, or a meaningful conflict, the original misconception may simply be fitted to the new, contradictory problem (Limón, 2001). Limón discusses several other authors that agree that a positive effect comes from the conflict, when the conflict and solution are both meaningful to the learner (Limón, 2001, pp. 360, 362). Rowlands et al discuss framing the misconception in Historical context in order to make it meaningful (Rowlands, Graham, Berry, & McWilliam, 2005). Discussion is the key to a successful cognitive conflict, through various techniques including, but not limited to the use of concept cartoons (Kibble, 2008), in order to make the task meaningful, and to generate conflict between peers (Limón, 2001).

The message from the literature is clear: listen to the learners ideas, allow plenty of talk time for all students (Rowlands, Graham, Berry, & McWilliam, 2005), but do so in a way that does not make them feel vulnerable (Liversidge, Cochrane, Kerfoot, & Thomas, 2009), and through the effective use of models and analogies, a gradual conceptual change can occur, from cognitive conflict, when the conflict and solution are relevant and meaningful to the solution (Limón, 2001).

By using techniques given in this literature review, I hope to be able to address misconceptions in this topic. I will use a pre-test to identify the misconceptions, and using the method (discussed below), make comments on each technique in terms of how useful it was in changing misconceptions (both short and long term).
Method
Context
School B is a large, mixed 11-18, ‘Outstanding’ academy, with high levels of achievement and high expectations. In 2007 Ofsted judged the school to be “Outstanding” with an “Outstanding” Sixth Form, which included teaching and learning. In 2010 Ofsted confirmed that the school was maintaining outstanding levels of performance and did not need to be inspected in 2010 or 2011 (School B Ofsted Report). There are approximately 1800 students on role. The class that is the focus of this study is a mixed ability, year 7 group, of 23 students. This will be the first time that forces (in a scientific context) have been addressed since primary school. There is a dedicated TA for a statemented child, and several other suspected SEN children. The scheme of work for the topic was written by one member of staff (as is the practice for each topic) and consists of 10 lessons (approximately 11 contact hours), including end of topic revision and test.
A list of common misconceptions compiled by Driver can be found in Appendix A. The list is by no means exhaustive, but this will be the starting point in identifying such misconceptions. Not all of these will be focused on explicitly in this assignment, but they will be addressed in the course of teaching the topic. From the background reading, the most accepted model for tackling misconceptions will be promoting conceptual change via cognitive conflict using models, analogies, group discussions, and concept cartoons (Liversidge, Cochrane, Kerfoot, & Thomas, 2009). Each misconception will be addressed using questioning at the start of a teaching episode, to identify which misconceptions are held by the class, followed by one or more of the methods described above.

Procedure for Gathering Evidence
A pre-test has been designed which covers the main misconceptions associated with this topic (see Appendix B). Any misconceptions not included in the test, are thought not to arise due to the scope of the scheme, but if they are made present will be addressed at the time. This test will be given to the class at the start of the topic (lesson 1), and again at the end of the topic (lesson 10) to monitor any changes. The changes will be analysed for the class as a whole group, and also on an individual basis. In this way, the misconceptions, progress, and learning can be assessed empirically for the class. At this time, it is assumed that all misconceptions will be held by at least one member of the group, and as such, they will be raised at an appropriate point in the teaching of the topic.
The scheme of work for this topic, outlined in Appendix D, covers a recap from Key Stage 2 of types of forces, and builds on the prior learning in lessons 1 and 2. A discussion of the forces acting on various objects is built into the scheme of work, which can be used to address misconception 1 (see Appendix A). At this time it would be appropriate to address language (e.g. the use of momentum and energy as the quantity ‘used up’ in place of ‘force’ (Kibble, 2006)) when talking about general forces (misconceptions 6 and 7, Appendix A). It then moves on to balanced and unbalanced forces in lesson 3, at which point misconceptions 3 and 4 can be addressed (see Appendix A), prior to discussion of moving objects (Millar, 2008). In order to address the misconception that no forces are acting on a stationary object, a bridging technique will be used (Terry, Jones, & Hurford, 1985), in order for learners to become aware of the forces acting on a table.
Misconceptions 2 and 5 (Appendix A) will be addressed in lessons 4 and 5, where speed and motion are discussed. This will be a difficult misconception to address, but it is thought that with careful definitions of terms and lots of discussion in small groups, perhaps with the aid of concept cartoons, the necessary conceptual change will occur. The key point to be made here is that stationary objects (with balanced forces) are a ‘special case’ of motion (Terry, Jones, & Hurford, 1985). In addition, misconceptions 8 and 9 of Appendix A, can be addressed in lessons 4, 5 and 6, by making clear that the net force causes a change in the motion, and that acceleration or change in speed is the result of an imbalance of forces, not speed in itself. The language used must be clearly defined and ample time give for discussion using these terms in the appropriate context.

Ethical considerations
The ethical considerations for this piece of research must be to address all misconceptions regardless of virulence, and to ensure that each learner has access to the same information. I will only use techniques that fall within the normal customs and practise of teaching (i.e. pre- and post-tests). Students will be informed that their participation is voluntary and that they are free to withdraw at any stage. Staff and students will also be informed what the data will be used for. The school and its students will remain anonymous throughout the study.
Results
The pre-instruction assessment (given in Appendix C) was given to the class before the first lesson of the forces and speed topic. The results have been analysed and the misconceptions categorised according to Driver’s misconceptions (Appendix A). Any misconceptions that fall outside of this list will be discussed separately. The results are shown below in figure 1. Pre-instruction misconceptions will be referred to as ‘preconceptions’ and post-instruction misconceptions will be referred to as misconceptions hereafter. Figure 1: number of students holding misconceptions pre- and post-instruction
The biggest Driver preconception held by learners was that a moving object has a force within it which keeps it going. In addition 74% of learners had the preconception that gravity was a force; with almost 50% of these thinking that gravity is a force acting from above an object pushing it down, much like an air pressure. Post instruction, 48% of students were still referring to weight as gravity, but were now aware that it was a pulling force.
Of the 9 misconceptions listed in Appendix A, 7 were held by learners pre-instruction, and 8 were held post instruction. It should be noted that some of those misconceptions that were held post-instruction, but were not evident pre-instruction, may have been held but not recorded, leading to a possible skew in results. 3 of the 9 preconceptions remained post instruction for three students, 3 preconceptions decreased in number, but 2 increased. The most prevalent misconception from Drivers list post-instruction was that motion is proportional to the force acting. Due to the nature of the assessment of misconceptions it was difficult to both classify them, and be sure if the misconception was held by the learner and not simply that they did not have sufficient language to communicate their ideas. Judging by the students that held this particular misconception according to the post-instruction test, it is likely that the majority of these did not in fact hold this misconception.
Another misconception that was picked up, but did not fit into the categories was that an object (say a car) moving horizontally has forces acting upon it until it stops, and then vertical forces take over. This was held by one student, and did not arise during the course of the topic due to the nature of the examples used. In all cases either the vertical case or the horizontal case was considered, never both together. This should be addressed for future teaching of the topic.
It should be noted that students that answers some questions correctly, and then answered subsequent questions with misconceptions even though the concepts could be used for both were clearly demonstrating behaviour as described by Smith et al (1994) whereby students display both a ‘physicist’ view and a misconception within the same problem-solving episode.
The questionnaires given to the students pre- and post-instruction have been analysed for common word usage. A graphic of the words used is given below (Figure 2) showing how the use of language changed before and after the topic. The biggest change that can be seen is that ‘gravity’, the most commonly used word before the topic began, has been replaced with ‘weight’ post-instruction. Another noteworthy point is that pre-instruction, there were few standout words, and no common language between students, but post-instruction, there were fewer words used, and much more coherence among the group.

Figure 2: graphic showing common word usage in questionnaires a) pre-instruction and b) post-instruction
Finally, topic test results were compared to target levels for each student in the class and levels achieved in previous topic tests. Three students (13%) were found to be underachieving (two or more sublevels below target level), however all three were two sublevels below and no more. When compared with three other topics (one Chemistry, one Physics and one Biology), less than 10% of the class were underachieving for two of the topics, but the other Physics topic resulted in almost 45% of the class underachieving in the end of topic test. 26% of pupils surpassed their target by two or more sublevels in the Forces topic, compared with 13%, 26% and 4% previously for a Chemistry, Biology and Physics topic respectively. A breakdown of levels is given in Appendix I.
Discussion of Results and Methods
The misconceptions that arose were on the whole consistent with the research and were categorised into pre-determined misconceptions. Problems arose where the misconceptions were similar, and classification was not so easy, for example: ‘if there is no motion, there is no force acting’ and ‘there cannot be force without motion’.
AFL strategies and questioning were used within each lesson to highlight misconceptions. Techniques used included concept cartoons, demonstrations, and an individual student asked to explain phenomena, or discuss what they think is happening in pairs. Students answered questions from the pupil book both individually and in pairs and small groups. In the case of pair and group work, students had to discuss their ideas and then agree on a solution, and all members of the group had to be equipped to answer the questions without aids. This process was slow, but allowed ample discussion time with students and resulted in a better quality of answer than when students were answering questions individually.
Although the AFL strategies used appeared to demonstrate widespread understanding of the group, the evaluation of the misconceptions held post-instruction shows that some remained unchallenged, and in some cases, misconceptions were held post-instruction where they were not previously held. In large part this is down to the recording strategy used for identifying misconceptions, and that pre-instruction learners were reluctant to answer the questions before they had been taught the material. Answers post-instruction were much more detailed and therefore misconceptions were much easier to pick up on. As the misconceptions were written in the learners own words, it was very difficult to identify which misconception they held, due to their use of the scientific terminology. It is far easier to identify misconceptions by listening to and discussing with students, but this is more difficult to quantify.
Individually, some students gained misconceptions, some students gave up misconceptions, and some students demonstrated no misconceptions at all. As a class the total number of students holding misconceptions decreased over the course of tuition, however two of nine misconceptions demonstrated an increase in the number of students holding the misconception.
Not all of the misconceptions given in the literature were held by students, but some preconceptions fell outside of those discussed in the literature. The biggest and most prevalent was that gravity is a force. In itself this is fairly harmless, and does not require significant cognitive shift, but a correction of terminology. The problem arose where a number of these students thought that gravity was a pressure (possibly caused by air) that pushes an object down to prevent it from floating away. This misconception was held by 48% of the class, and stemmed from KS2 instruction that gravity ‘is the force that keeps us on the ground by pushing us down’. This misconception also lead to students believing that an object on a table was there simply because the table was ‘in the way’ (discussed by Terry et al, 1985), which can be categorised under ‘if there is no motion, there is no force acting’, as students often qualify that no forces are acting except gravity. This misconception was addressed during the course of teaching using the bridging technique discussed earlier, and post instruction only 22% of learners still held this view.
The use of concept cartoons was very effective in highlighting and addressing preconceptions. Moreover it provided an ideal opportunity for discussion amongst the students. The discussion was between students about which was the correct model and teacher talk was kept to a minimum, mediating discussion and asking students to explain why they had chosen a particular model. In this way students were forced to shift the way they considered the problem in order to fit the ‘correct’ model, leading to significant conceptual change for the majority of students, and reinforcing concepts for others.
The main problem with the techniques discussed is that they require the student to engage with their own learning in order lead to a cognitive shift, and are by nature not accessible to all students. Approximately 13% of the class of 23 students, still had significant misconceptions at the end of the topic, either due to not being able to realise the conflict existed, or not engaging with the material and choosing instead to remember facts. Many of the questionnaires post-instruction were almost identical in the terminology used, suggesting recall of subject matter as opposed to inherent understanding.
Problems arising from the testing method were numerous but included difficulty in classifying misconceptions due to the questionnaire being too open-ended; difficulty in quantifying misconceptions; overlap between misconceptions; not being able to flag up all preconceptions due to students unwillingness to answer questions without prior instruction; and difficulty in analysing misconceptions where some students remember the ‘correct’ answer, not write what they think. Greater structure to questioning and a more rigorous method is required to really quantify misconceptions before and after (and probably during) the topic so that improvements could be confidently recorded. Without this it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of the AFL and teaching strategies in dealing with misconceptions. However the techniques worked well short term, but long-term conceptual change has not been conclusively recorded.
It should also be noted that testing during the topic may indeed highlight significantly more pupil misconceptions than pre-topic due to a number of factors: the students unwillingness to answer questions without prior learning; and Rowlands’ et al (2005) view that misconceptions only arise once the student has been asked to consider a problem in a scientific context. These inter-topic tests could not only be used as a better indicator of the prevalence of misconceptions but also as an AFL tool.
Those misconceptions which were still prevalent at the end of the topic (mainly that motion is proportional to the force acting), are indeed a very difficult concepts to comprehend, and ones that are still a problem throughout and often beyond school. The techniques discussed and used in this essay are not ‘one offs’; they need to be used and re-used to ensure that a full cognitive shift has taken place once the concepts are developed in the learners mind.
Conclusion
Children demonstrated significant misconceptions both prior to and during the forces topic. Most of these had been addressed by the end of the targets and there was a clear shift in the language used by learners to express their ideas. Assessment for learning is an integral part of teaching and learning in any classroom, but it becomes particularly relevant in the identification of, and addressing of children’s’ misconceptions.
The results of the post-test show that students have a much better awareness of what forces are and what they do, but the method of evaluating misconceptions did not help to determine whether or not the students understood the material or were simply remembering the answers. The questions needed greater scaffolding, with more closed questions for more effective assessment. Multiple choice questionnaires would be far easier to evaluate but wouldn’t necessarily highlight all misconceptions.
Most misconceptions were as expected by there were additional misconceptions that were not present in the literature, and one which did not present itself until the post-topic test. Although this misconception was not addressed at the time, it can now be addressed in subsequent teaching of the topic.
Allowing students’ time to talk and share their ideas was the key to finding out which misconceptions students held and in overcoming them. In particular the use of concept cartoons during the topic was successful due to the discussion it generated amongst students in pairs and as a class, who could talk through their ideas and why certain models were incorrect. Ideas that worked in the student’s head, fell down when the communicated them aloud, and highlighted the misconception to the students. Only when the student realised a conflict, could they start to address it.
The testing method in itself was flawed. The questionnaire was too vague and would require greater structuring in the future so that misconceptions are more easily identified and categorised. Not all preconceptions were recorded as students were reluctant to answer open-ended questions without being taught the topic first. In this case perhaps a multiple choice questionnaire would help, in addition to testing mid-topic once misconceptions started to propagate. Concept cartoons and group discussions were very effective in addressing misconceptions in students that were effectively engaging with the material, and in some students that were passively learning, but not all, so were not accessible methods of dealing with misconceptions for a minority of students.
The implications of the research for future teaching are a heightened awareness of the number and persistence of misconceptions pertaining to the forces topic at Key Stage 3, as well as a number of effective strategies for allowing learners to overcome them. No technique is 100% effective and a range of strategies should be implemented. The research suggested that forces carried significant misconceptions, more so than most other topics, and this has been experienced first-hand.
In summary, the techniques were largely successful in overcoming the majority of misconceptions, with the total number of misconceptions decreasing over the course of instruction, and most misconceptions at worst staying the same. Where misconceptions appear to have increased in number, it is likely to be largely down to the recording strategy of preconceptions, and that they were not successfully recorded in pre-testing, even if the misconceptions were held.
References
Bello, A. Q. (2006). Misconceptions on freely falling objects. Proceedings of the 8th SPVM National Physics Conference and Workshop, (pp. 36-39). Iligan City.
Dede, C. J., Salzman, M., & Loftin, R. B. (1996). The Development of a Virtual World for Learning Newtonian Mechanics. (P. Brusilovsky, P. Kommers, & N. Streitz, Eds.) Multimedia, Hypermedia, and Virtual Reality, 87-106.
DEMİRCİ, N. (2003). DEALING WITH MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT FORCE AND MOTION CONCEPTS IN PHYSICS: A STUDY OF USING WEB-BASED PHYSICS PROGRAM. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40-47.
Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: research into children's ideas. London: Routledge.
Key Stage 3 National Strategy. (2003). Strengthening teaching and learning of forces in Key Stage 3 science. London: Crown.
Kibble, B. (2006). Understanding forces: what's the problem? Physics Education, 41(3), 228-231.
Kibble, B. (2008, March). Becoming a good forces teacher. School Science Review, 89(328), 77-83.
Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380.
Liversidge, T., Cochrane, M., Kerfoot, B., & Thomas, J. (2009). Teaching Science: Developing as a Reflective Secondary Teacher. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Millar, R. (2008). Teaching about forces. Retrieved February 12, 2012, from Teachfind: http://www.teachfind.com/national-strategies/teaching-about-forces
Rowlands, S., Graham, T., Berry, J., & McWilliam, P. (2005). MISCONCEPTIONS OF FORCE: SPONTANEOUS REASONING OR WELL-FORMED IDEAS PRIOR TO INSTRUCTION? Research in Mathematics Education, 7, 47-65.
School B Ofsted Report. (n.d.). Inspection Reports. Retrieved February 12, 2012, from Ofsted: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report
Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions Reconceived: A Constructivist Analysis of Knowledge in Transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115-163.
Terry, C., Jones, G., & Hurford, W. (1985). Children's conceptual understanding of forces and equilibrium. Phys. Educ, 20, 162-165.

Appendix A
List of expected misconceptions
Misconceptions as listed in Making Sense of Secondary Science: Research into Children’s Ideas (Driver, Squires, Rushworth, & Wood-Robinson, 1994, p. 149)
1. Only living things can exert force
2. If there is motion, there is a force acting
3. If there is no motion, there is no force acting
4. There cannot be force without motion
5. When an object is moving, there is a force in the direction of its motion
6. A moving object stops when its force is used up
7. A moving object has a force within it which keeps it going
8. Motion is proportional to the force acting
9. A constant speed results from a constant force Appendix B
Action Plan
I plan to investigate the misconceptions that a group of year 7 pupils hold on the topic of forces. I will then carry out a series of lessons in which I hope to address these misconceptions. Over the course of 10 lessons I intend to use discussion and group work to overcome the issues raised. I will use AFL starters in order to identify any misconceptions students have on the topic. Pupils will be constantly assessed throughout the lessons with plenty of opportunity given to sharing their ideas. I will then reassess the pupils’ ideas of forces at the end of the series of lessons to see whether the teaching models which I have used have helped them understand the concept of forces and motion.
Plan of Investigation
At the start of the forces and motion topic, I will give each student a questionnaire about their current knowledge and ideas about forces and motion. It will consist of 5 questions that address a range of misconceptions as described in the literature. After this first lesson, I will analyse the results and adjust my lesson plans to accommodate overcoming the misconceptions. Any other misconceptions will be addressed as they arise.
Timescale
Week 21 Finalise pre-topic assessment with School B Subject mentor and class teacher, assess pupils understanding using pre-test and carry out first lesson. The results will be analysed before the next lesson.
Lesson 1 The learning outcomes for this lesson are to describe the three types of forces (push, pull, turning) and give some everyday examples. At the start of the lesson, the class will take the pre-test. The terms momentum, energy and force will be discussed (correct language and how to used it will address the misconceptions that (1) a moving object stops when its force is used up and (2) a moving object has a force within it which keeps it going). The types of forces and where they occur will be discussed (tackling the possible misconception that only living things can exert force).
Week 22 Carry out lessons 2 and 3 Lesson 2 This lesson will focus on contact forces Lesson 3 This lesson will focus on balanced and unbalanced forces for stationary and moving objects. Stationary objects will be discussed first. The following misconceptions will be addressed: (1) if there is no motion, there is no force acting; (2) there cannot be force without motion. A bridging technique will be used.
Week 23 Carry out lessons 4 and 5 Lesson 4 Describe speed and measure the speed and average speed of an object. The following misconceptions will be addressed with the aid of concept cartoons: if there is motion, there is force acting; when an object is moving, there is a force in the direction of its motion. Stationary objects will be described as a ‘special case’ of motion. Lesson 5 This lesson is a HSW lesson building on practical enquiry skills, measuring speed, distance and time. There will be a discussion of standard units. Some discussion with the students linking forces and energy to changes in speed
Week 24 Carry out lessons 6 and 7 Lesson 6 This lesson introduces the idea of friction as a force that opposes movement. The following misconceptions will be addressed in this lesson: motion is proportional to the force acting; constant speed results from a constant force. The terms acceleration and net force will be discussed Lesson 7 This lesson in will focus on air resistance and its effects
Week 25 Carry out the final 2 teaching lessons in the forces topic and reassess pupils Lesson 8 This lesson is a HSW investigation into the best shaped parachute Lesson 9 This lesson is an APP task into finding out the effect of different surfaces on friction. The lesson will end with the pupils being reassessed
Week 26 Finish of the forces topic with revision and end of unit test Lesson 10 revision and end of unit test
Week 27 Data will be analysed.
Week 29 Data will be evaluated.
Week 30 Assignment will be written up.
Week 32 Assignment will be submitted. Appendix C
Draft Pre-Instruction Assessment
Q1 What is a force (try to use the scientific meaning)?

Q2 What types of force are there?

Q3 If a book is lying flat on a table, are there forces acting on it? Yes / No
Try to draw them on the diagram:

Q4 Describe how forces affect the motion of a car, starting from rest. What happens to the force, or forces, when the car stops?

Q5 Draw the forces acting on this skydiver. Can you explain what they are, and how they affect his motion?

Appendix D
Forces and Speed Scheme of Work Outline for School B
Lesson 1 Measuring force around you • Describe what forces do to objects
• Recognise some examples of forces (in action) around you
• Explain the effect of force on a spring
Lesson 2 Different forces around you • Recognise what forces do to objects
• Identify some examples of contact and non-contact forces
Lesson 3 Balanced and unbalanced forces • Describe the differences between balanced and unbalanced forces
• Draw forces on diagrams
• Explain the effects of balanced and unbalanced forces on an object’s movement or motion
Lesson 4 Speeding along / speed cameras • State what is meant by speed
• Describe how speed is measured
• Calculate the speed of an object
Lesson 5 Measuring speed • Recognise the use of standard units of measurement
• Calculate the speed
• Evaluate the accuracy of an experiment
Lesson 6 Friction • Describe the effects of friction
• Recognise that friction is the force that opposes the movement of an object
• Recognise some examples of where friction is useful and where it is a problem
Lesson 7 Air resistance (wind tunnel) • Describe air resistance and its effects
• Explain what air resistance is using the idea of particles
Lesson 8 APP – bungee or parachutes lesson • Apply the concept of air resistance to a skydiver’s descent
Lesson 9 APP – skateboard surface • APP task – investigative skills
• Pupils will find out about the effect of different surfaces on friction
Lesson 10 Revision and end of unit test

Appendix E
Detailed scheme of work provided by School B Appendix F
Sample of pre-instruction test Appendix G
Sample of post-instruction test Appendix H
Categorised misconceptions
Misconception Students holding misconception pre-instruction Students holding misconception post-instruction
Only living things can exert force WA WA
If there is motion, there is a force acting AW AW
If there is no motion, there is no force acting GD GD
There cannot be force without motion SB SH EB GD JW GD AAO
When an object is moving, there is a force in the direction of its motion None WA
A moving object stops when its force is used up AW EF GD GD LS
A moving object has a force within it which keeps it going SB BT INV EF EB AAS SH RG WA BT
Motion is proportional to the force acting BT INV BT SO EB LS SC INV
A constant speed results from a constant force None None
Gravity is a force SB SC GD EPM JL MB AAS BT EB AW EF DS RG WA ER INV JW WA DS SO AW ER SH GD LS SC CE AAO
Air is a force WA SB GD EB DS EF AW AAS None

Appendix I
Target and test levels for research class Appendix J
Lesson plans and evaluations
Appendix K
List of standards addressed in this assignment
Q4 Communicate effectively with children, young people, colleagues, parents and carers
Q7 Reflect on and improve their practice; and take responsibility for professional development
Q8 Have a creative and constructively critical approach towards innovation, adapting practice where appropriate
Q10 Use a range of teaching, learning and behaviour management strategies, including personalising learning
Q12 Know a range of approaches to assessment, including the importance of formative assessment
Q14 Have a secure knowledge and understanding of their subjects/curriculum areas and related pedagogy
Q18 Understand how progress is affected by developmental, social, religious, ethnic, cultural and linguistic influences
Q22 Plan for progression within and across lessons, demonstrating secure subject/curriculum knowledge