Obstacles to Reasoning about Inertia in Different Contexts
The present study investigated the underlying reasons for difficulties faced by students when they applied the
concept of inertia across varying contexts. The participants of the study included five high school students. Data
obtained from interviews were interpreted from the perspectives of the coordination class and epistemological
framing theories. Analysis indicated that students demonstrated different reasoning patterns across the varying
situations. Students’ performances were influenced by their epistemological framings about problem solving and
previous experiences related to learning physics. Students also revealed a lack of metacognitive awareness about
their reasoning in related situations. The results also demonstrated that learning inertia is not a simple task as
assumed. The study provides methodological and instructional implications for assessing and teaching inertia.
diSessa, A. A., Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2002). J’s epistemological stance and strategies. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 237–290). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1155–1191.
diSessa, A. A., & Wagner, J. F. (2005). What coordination has to say about transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multi-disciplinary perspective (pp. 121–154). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Georghiades, P. (2006). The role of metacognitive activities in the contextual use of primary pupils' conceptions of science. Research in Science Education, 36(1), 29–49.
Giancoli, D. C. (2000). Physics for scientists and engineers with modern physics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Griffith, W. T. (2001). The physics of everyday phenomena: A conceptual introduction to physics (3th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89–119). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506–524.
Levrini, O., & diSessa, A. (2008). How students learn from multiple contexts and definitions: Proper time as a coordination class. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research, 4(1), 010107-1–18.
Ministry of Education Board (2014). Ninth grade high school physics. Retrieved from http://www.meb.gov.tr/2014-2015-egitim-ogretim-yilinda-okutulacak-ilk-ve-orta-ogretimders- kitaplari/duyuru/7013
Ozdemir, O. F. (2013). Transfer and conceptual change: the change process from the theoretical perspectives of coordination classes and phenomenological primitives. Instructional Science, 41(1), 81–103.
Redish, E. F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. In E. Redish, C. Tarsitani & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI: Italian Physical Society.
Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Thaden-Koch, T. C., Dufresne, R. J., & Mestre, J. P. (2006). Coordination of knowledge in judging animated motion. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 2(2), 020107.
Wagner, J. F. (2006). Transfer in pieces. Cognition and Instruction, 24(1), 1–71.
Wittmann, M. C. (2002). The object coordination class applied to wave pulses: Analyzing student reasoning in wave physics. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 991–1013.
Young, H. D., & Freedman, R. A. (2008). Sears and Zemansky's university physics (Vol. 1). San Francisco, CA: Pearson Education.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The copyright for all articles belongs to the authors. All other copyright is held by the journal.