Addressing Misconceptions Regarding Force and Energy through Cognitive Conflict Activities

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of cognitive conflict-based activities, instructor, and their interaction on students’ conceptual understanding and remediation of misconceptions regarding force and energy. This quasi-experimental study involved 58 seventh-grade students (27 boys and 31 girls) from two distinct elementary schools during the second semester of the 2018-2019 academic year. The experimental group engaged in cognitive conflict-based activities, whereas the control group participated in activities derived from the science textbook. The researchers developed seven activities comprising three stages: identifying misconceptions, generating contradictions, and elucidating the concept. The study utilized the three-tier Force and Energy Misconceptions Test for data collection. Scores for scientific knowledge and misconceptions were computed, and a two-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the impact of the implementation. We conducted additional calculations to compare the percentages of each misconception assessed in the pre- and post-tests. The results indicated that cognitive conflict-based activities affected students' conceptual understanding scores significantly with respect to curriculum-based activities. On the contrary, no significant difference was observed concerning the interaction between the implementation and the instructor. The results also indicated that cognitive conflict-based activities eliminated students' misconceptions significantly with respect to curriculum-based activities. This study demonstrates the value of cognitive conflict-based activities in addressing misconceptions regarding force and energy, whereas curriculum-based activities prove ineffective in this regard.

Keywords

• Misconceptions
• conceptual change
• cognitive conflict-based activity
• force and energy

Bilişsel Çelişki Temelli Etkinliklerle Kuvvet ve Enerji ile İlgili Kavram Yanılgılarının Giderilmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, bilişsel çelişki temelli etkinliklerin öğrencilerin kuvvet ve enerji konularındaki kavram yanılgılarının giderilmesine etkisi araştırılmıştır. Yarı-deneysel olan bu çalışma, 2018-2019 eğitim öğretim yılının ikinci döneminde iki ayrı ortaokulda öğrenim gören yedinci sınıf, 58 öğrenci ile yürütülmüştür. Deney grubuna bilişsel çelişki temelli etkinlikler uygulanırken, kontrol grubuna Fen Bilgisi Ders Kitabı'ndan alınan etkinlikler uygulanmıştır. Araştırmacılar, kavram yanılgılarını ortaya çıkarma, çelişki yaratma ve kavramın açıklığa kavuşturulması olmak üzere üç aşamalı yedi etkinlik tasarlamışlardır. Çalışmada veri, üç aşamalı Kuvvet ve Enerji Kavram Yanılgıları Tanı Testi kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Bilimsel bilgi ve kavram yanılgısı puanları hesaplanarak, yapılan uygulamanın etkisini belirlemek için iki yönlü ANOVA analizi kullanılmıştır. Ön ve son testlerde değerlendirilen her bir kavram yanılgısının yüzdelerini karşılaştırmak için Excel'de ek hesaplamalar yapılmıştır. Sonuçlar, kuvvet ve enerji kavramlarını anlama konusunda öğrencilerin bilimsel bilgi puanlarında bilişsel çelişki temelli etkinliklerin lehine anlamlı bir fark olduğunu göstermiştir. Benzer şekilde, öğretim veren kişiye göre öğrencilerin bilimsel bilgi puanlarında araştırmacının öğretim yaptığı grubun lehine anlamlı bir fark bulunsa da yapılan uygulama ve öğretimi veren kişi arasındaki etkileşime ait anlamlı bir fark bulunamamıştır. Kuvvet ve enerji konularındaki kavram yanılgıları gidermede bilişsel çelişki temelli etkinliklerin lehine öğrenci puanları arasında anlamlı fark bulunurken, öğretim veren kişiler dikkate alındığında anlamlı fark saptanmamıştır. Bu çalışma, yedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin kuvvet ve enerji konularında sahip oldukları kavram yanılgılarını gidermede bilişsel çelişki temelli etkinliklerin önemini göstermektedir.

Keywords

• kavram yanılgıları
• kavramsal değişim
• bilişsel çelişki temelli etkinlikler
• kuvvet ve enerji

References

1. Anggoro, S., Widodo, A., Suhandi, A., & Treagust, D. F. (2019). Using a discrepant event to facilitate preservice elementary teachers’ conceptual change about force and motion. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 15(8), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/105275
2. Atasoy, Ş., Kucuk, M., & Akdeniz, A. (2011). Remedying science student teachers' misconceptions of force and motion using worksheets based on constructivist learning theory. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies, 3. 653-668.
3. Aygün, M., & Tan, M. (2021). The impact of mass on action-reaction forces during a collision: Using a conceptual change text or traditional expository text to overcome misconception. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 51, 65-91.
4. Bahtaji, M. A. A. (2023). Examining the physics conceptions, science engagement and misconceptions of undergraduate students in STEM. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 22, 10-19. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/23.22.10
5. Bar, V. (1989). Introducing mechanics at elementary school. Physics Education, 24, 348-352. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/24/6/006
6. Başer, M. (2006). Fostering conceptual change by cognitive conflict based instruction on students' understanding of heat and temperature concepts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 96-114. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75458
7. Bayraktar, Ş. (2009). Misconceptions of Turkish pre-service teachers about force and motion. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 273-291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9120-9
8. Besson, U., & De Ambrosis, A. (2014). Teaching energy concepts by working on themes of cultural and environmental value. Science & Education, 23, 1309–1338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9592-7

9. Brod, G. (2021). Generative learning: Which strategies for what age? Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1295-1318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09571-9
10. Brookes, D. T., & Etkina, E. (2009). Force, ontology, and language. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 5. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010110
11. Canlas, I. P. (2019). Using visual representations in identifying students’ preconceptions in friction. Research in Science & Technological Education, 39(2), 156–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1660630
12. Caramazza, A., McCloskey, M., & Green, B. (1981). Naive beliefs in "sophisticated" subjects: Misconceptions about trajectories of objects. Cognition, 9(2), 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(81)90007-X
13. Chabalengula, V. M., Sanders, M., & Mumba, F. (2012). Diagnosing students’ understanding of energy and its related concepts in biological context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(2), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9291-2
14. Chan, C. M., Burtis, P. J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1501_1
15. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161-199. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1402_1
16. Chiu, M.-H. (2007). A national survey of students’ conceptions of chemistry in Taiwan, International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 421-452. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601072964
17. Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66-71. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.12989
18. Coelho, R. L. (2010). On the concept of force: How understanding its history can improve physics teaching. Science & Education, 19, 91–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-008-9183-1
19. De Lozano, S. R., & Cardenas, M. (2002). Some learning problems concerning the use of symbolic language in physics. Science & Education, 11, 589–599. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019643420896
20. Diakidoy, I. A. N., Kendeou, P., Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 335-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00039-5
21. Dignath, D., Kiesel, A., & Eder, A. B. (2015). Flexible conflict management: Conflict avoidance and conflict adjustment in reactive cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(4), 975-988. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000089
22. Docktor, J. & Mestre, J. (2014). A synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020119 .
23. Dostal, J. A. (2005). Student concepts of Gravity [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Iowa State University.
24. Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E., & Eliovitch, R. (1990). Applying the "cognitive conflict" strategy for conceptual change-some implications, difficulties, and problems. Science Education, 74(5), 555–569. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740506
25. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1995). Students’ conceptions and constructivist teaching approaches. In B. J. Fraser and H. J. Walberg (Eds.). Improving science education. (pp. 46-49). The National Society for the Study of Education.
26. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305016
27. Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality, and development. Taylor and Francis.
28. Erman, E. (2017). Factors contributing to students’ misconceptions in learning covalent bonds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(4), 520–537. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21375
29. Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students' misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001-1015. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10054
30. Fisher, D. (2022). Mathematics mobile blended learning development: Student-oriented high order thinking skill learning. European Journal of Educational Research, 11(1), 69-81. https://doi.org/ 10.12973/eu-jer.11.1.69
31. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2019). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (7th ed.). McGraw Hill Higher Education.
32. Galili, I., & Lehavi, Y. (2003). The importance of weightlessness and tides in teaching gravity. American Journal of Physics, 71,1127–1135. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1607336
33. Gay, L. and Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and experience. (6th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
34. Gilbert, J. K., & Zylbersztajn, A. (1985). A conceptual framework for science education: The case study of force and movement. European Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528850070201
35. Gönen, S. (2008). A study on student teachers’ misconceptions and scientifically acceptable conceptions about mass and gravity. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 70–81.
36. Graham, T., Berry, J., & Rowlands, S. (2013). Are ‘misconceptions’ or alternative frameworks of force and motion spontaneous or formed prior to instruction? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(1), 84-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2012.703333
37. Gruszczyński, R. (2022). Parts of falling objects: Galileo’s thought experiment in mereological setting. Erkenntnis, 87, 1583–1604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-020-00263-y
38. Guerra-Reyes, F., Guerra-Dávila, E., Naranjo-Toro, M., Basantes-Andrade, A., & Guevara-Betancourt, S. (2024). Misconceptions in the learning of natural sciences: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 14(5), 497.
39. Gunstone, R.F. & White, R.T. (1981). Understanding of gravity. Science Education, 65, 291-299. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730650308
40. Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116-159. https://doi.org/10.2307/747886
41. Hadjiachilleos, S., Valanides, N., & Angeli, C. (2013). The impact of cognitive and affective aspects of cognitive conflict on learners’ conceptual change about floating and sinking. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(2), 133-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.811074
42. Halim, L., Yong, T., & Meerah, T. (2014). Overcoming students’ misconceptions on forces in equilibrium: An action research study. Creative Education, 5(11), 1032-1042. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.511117
43. Halilovic, A., Mešić, V., Hasović, E., & Vidak, A. (2022). The post-instruction conceptions about conservation of mechanical energy: Findings from a survey research with high school and university students. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(1), 144-162.
44. Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1056–1065. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.14031
45. Holmes, K., Gore, J., Smith, M., & Lloyd, A. (2018). An integrated analysis of school students’ aspirations for STEM careers: Which student and school factors are most predictive? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(4), 655–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9793-z
46. Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meanings of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2(1), 5–62.
47. Iwuanyanwu, P. N. (2020). Nature of problem-solving skills for 21st Century STEM Learners: What teachers need to know? Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 55(1). https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTE55.1/MMDZ8325
48. Kınık Topalsan, A. (2015). Sınıf öğretmenliği öğretmen adaylarının kuvvet ve hareket konusundaki kavram yanılgılarının ontolojik açıdan incelenmesi ve bulunan yanılgıların oluşturulan argüman ortamları ile giderilmesi [Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi]. Marmara Üniversitesi.
49. Kınık Topalsan, A., & Bayram, H. (2019). Identifying prospective primary school teachers’ ontologically categorized misconceptions on the topic of “force and motion.” The Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(1), 85-109.
50. Kohn, K. P., Underwood, S. M., & Cooper, M. M. (2018). Energy connections and misconnections across chemistry and biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1).
51. Küçük, M., Çepni, S., & Gökdere, M. (2005). Turkish primary school students’ alternative conceptions about work, power and energy. Journal of Physics Teacher Education, 3, 22–28.
52. Kruger, C., Palacio, D., & Summers, M. (1992). Surveys of English primary teachers’ conceptions of force, energy, and materials, Science Education, 76(4), 339–351.
53. Lancor, R. (2014). Using metaphor theory to examine conceptions of energy in biology, chemistry, and physics. Science & Education, 23(6), 1245-1267.
54. Lee, G., & Kwon, J. (2001, January 18-21). What do you know about students’ cognitive conflict in science Education: A theoretical model of cognitive process [Conference presentation proceeding]. 2001 AETS Annual meeting 2001 (pp. 309-325). Costa Mesa, CA, United States. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED472903
55. Lee, G., Kwon, J., Park, S., Kim, J., Kwon, H., & Park, H. (2003). Development of an instrument for measuring cognitive conflict in secondary-level science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 585–603.
56. Legendre, M. F. (1997). Task analysis and validation for a qualitative, exploratory curriculum in force and motion. Instructional Science, 25, 255-305.
57. Lijnse, P. (1990). Energy between the life-world of pupils and the world of physics. Science Education, 74, 571-583. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740507
58. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11(4-5), 357-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00037-2
59. Limón, M., & Carretero, M. (1997). Conceptual change and anomalous data: A case study in the domain of natural sciences. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(2), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173085
60. Liu, G., & Fang, N. (2016). Student misconceptions about force and acceleration in physics and engineering mechanics education. International Journal of Engineering Education. 32. 19-29.
61. Lombardi, O. (1999). Aristotelian physics in the context of teaching science: A historical-philosophical approach. Science & Education, 8, 217–239. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008641526822
62. Madu, B. C., & Orji, E. (2015). Effects of cognitive conflict instructional strategy on students' conceptual change in temperature and heat. SAGE Open, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015594662
63. Maloney, D. P., O’Kuma, T. L., & Hieggelke, C. J. (2001). Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism. American Journal of Physics, 69(S1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1371296
64. Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B. & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons. Melbourne, Australia: Report for the Australian Council of Learned Academies ACOLA.
65. McCloskey, M., & Kohl, D. (1983). Naive physics: The curvilinear impetus theory and its role in interactions with moving objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(1), 146–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.9.1.146
66. Megalakaki, O., & Thibaut, J. P. (2016). Development and differentiation of force and energy concepts for animate and inanimate objects in children and adolescents. Research in Science Education, 46, 457–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9467-9
67. Mestre, P. J. (1991). Learning and instruction in pre-college physical science. Physics Today, 44(9), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.881275
68. Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining the ‘at rest’ condition of an object. The Physics Teacher, 20(1), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2340924
69. Nakhleh, M. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Influence on levels of information as presented by different technologies on students’ understanding of acid, base, and pH concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1077–1096. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660311004
70. Nalkıran, T., & Karamustafaoğlu, S. (2020). Prediction-Observation-Explanation (POE) Method and Its Efficiency in Teaching “Work, Energy, Power” Concepts. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 7(3), 497-521.
71. Neidorf, T., Arora, A., Erberber, E., Tsokodayi, Y., & Mai, T. (2020). Review of research into misconceptions and misunderstandings in physics and mathematics. In: Student misconceptions and errors in physics and mathematics. IEA Research for Education, 9. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30188-0_2
72. Neumann, K., Viering, T., Boone, W., & Fischer, H. (2013). Towards a learning progression of energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 162-188. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21061
73. Nordine, J., Krajcik, J., & Fortus, D. (2011). Transforming energy instruction in middle school to support integrated understanding and future learning. Science Education 95(4), 670–699.
74. Novak J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: the essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education 86, 548–571.
75. Özdemir, G., & Clark, D. B. (2007). An overview of conceptual change theories. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(4), 351-361. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75414
76. Özkan, G., & Umdu Topsakal, U. (2021). Investigating the effectiveness of STEAM education on students’ conceptual understanding of force and energy topics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 39(4), 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2020.1769586
77. Palmer, D. (1997). The effect of context on students’ reasoning about forces. International Journal of Science Education, 19(6), 681-696. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190605
78. Philips, W. C. (1991). Earth science misconceptions. Science Teacher, 58(2), 21–23. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ423625
79. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
80. Ramma, Y., Bholoa, A., Watts, M., & Nadal, P. S. (2017). Teaching and learning physics using technology: Making a case for the affective domain. Education Inquiry, 9(2), 210–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2017.1343606
81. Resbiantoro, G., Setiani, R., & Dwikoranto (2022). A review of misconception in physics: the diagnosis, causes, and remediation. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(2), 403-427.
82. Rowlands, S., Graham, T., Berry, J., & McWilliam, P. (2007). Conceptual change through the lens of Newtonian mechanics. Science & Education, 16, 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-005-1339-7
83. Sadanand, N., & Kess, J. (1990). Concepts in force and motion. The Physics Teacher, 28(8), 503–533. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343138
84. Saul, J., & Redish, E. F. (1999, November 7-9). A comparison of pre and post FCI results for innovative and traditional introductory calculus-based physics classes [Conference presentation abstract]. 66th Annual meeting of the Southeastern Section of the American Physical Society, Chapel Hill, NC, United States. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999APS..SES..JE03S/abstract
85. Seyed Fadaei, A. & Mora, C. (2015). An investigation about misconceptions in force and motion in high school. US-China Education Review, 5(1), 38-45. https://doi.org/10.17265/2161-623X/2015.01.004
86. Shahbari, J. A., Peled, I. (2015). Resolving cognitive conflict in a realistic situation with modelling characteristics: Coping with a changing reference in fractions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(4), 891-907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9509-1
87. Sharma, M. D., Millar, R. M., Smith, A., & Sefton, I. M. (2004). Students' understandings of gravity in an orbiting space-ship. Research in Science Education, 34, 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000044605.00448.bd
88. Siantuba, J., Nkhata, L., & de Jong, T. (2023). The impact of an online inquiry-based learning environment addressing misconceptions on students' performance. Smart Learning Environments, 10(22). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00236-y
89. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993-1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1
90. Stavy, R. & Berkovitz, B. (1980). Cognitive conflict as a basis for teaching quantitative aspects of the concept of temperature. Science Education 64(5), 679-692. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730640514
91. Streveler, R. A., Litzinger, T. A., Miller, R. L., & Steif, P. S. (2008). Learning conceptual knowledge in the engineering sciences: Overview and future research directions. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00979.x.
92. Stylianidou, F. (2002). Analysis of science textbook pictures about energy and pupils’ readings of them. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 257-283. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110078905
93. Taşlıdere, E., & Yıldırım, B. (2023). Effect of conceptual change–oriented instruction on students’ conceptual understanding and attitudes towards simple electricity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21, 1567–1589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10319-w
94. Temiz, B. & Yavuz, A. (2014). Students’ misconceptions about Newton's second law in outer space. European Journal of Physics, 35. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/35/4/045004
95. Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Dehaene, W., Deprez, J., De Cock, M., Hellinckx, L., Knipprath, H., Langie, G., Struyven, K., Van de Velde, D., Van Petegem, P. and Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 02. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525
96. Timur, S. (2012). Examining cognitive structures of prospective preschool teachers concerning the subject "force and motion". Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 12, 3039-3049. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1002998
97. Toka, Y. ve Aşkar, P. (2002). Bilişsel çelişki ve kavramsal değişim metni yöntemlerinin bir bilinmeyenli birinci derecen denklemlerle ilgili öğrenci başarısına etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(23), 211- 217.
98. Tural Dinçer, G. (2009). Kütle çekimi, serbest düşme hareketi ve ağırlık konularının öğrenilmesinde 5E öğretim modelinin etkisi [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi.
99. Uwamahoro, J., Ndihokubwayo, K., Ralph, M., & Ndayambaje, I. (2021). Physics students’ conceptual understanding of geometric optics: Revisited analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30, 706–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09913-4
100. Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11(4-5), 381–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00038-4
101. Vosniadou, S., & Skopeliti, I. (2014). Conceptual change from the framework theory side of the fence. Science & Education, 23, 1427–1445.
102. Wancham, K., Tangdhanakanond, K., & Kanjanawasee, S. (2023). Development of the automatic item generation system for the diagnosis of misconceptions about force and laws of motion. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(6), em2282. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13251
103. Watts, D. M., & Zylbersztajn, A. (1981). A survey of some children’s ideas about force. Physics Education, 16(6), 360-365. http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/16/6/313
104. Wells, J., Henderson, R., Traxler, A., Miller, P., and Stewart, J. (2020). Exploring the structure of misconceptions in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation with modified module analysis. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010121
105. Whitaker, R. J. (1983). Aristotle is not dead: Student understanding of trajectory motion. American Journal of Physics, 51(4), 352–357. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.13247
106. Widiyatmoko, A., & Shimizu, K. (2018). Literature review of factors contributing to students’ misconceptions in light and optical instruments. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 13(10), 853–863. http://www.ijese.net/makale/2093.html
107. Yıldız, E. (2008). 5e modelinin kullanıldığı kavramsal değişime dayalı öğretimde üst bilişin etkileri: 7. Sınıf kuvvet ve hareket ünitesine yönelik bir uygulama [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi.
108. Yürümezoğlu, K., Ayaz, S., Çökelez, A. (2009). İlköğretim ikinci kademe öğrencilerinin enerji ve enerji ile ilgili kavramları algılamaları. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(2), 52-73. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/balikesirnef/issue/3369/46505
109. Zohar, A., & Aharon-Kravetsky, S. (2005). Exploring the effects of cognitive conflict and direct teaching for students of different academic levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 829–855. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20075