Newton's second law is one of the cornerstones of the introductory physics curriculum, but it can still trouble a large number of students well after its introduction, hobbling their ability to apply the concept to problem solving1 and to related concepts, such as momentum, circular motion, and orbits. While there are several possibilities for lab activities addressing the functional relationship among net force, mass, and acceleration, the qualitative understanding of the connection between forces and acceleration can still be lacking,2 leading to poor performance in problem solving and in assessments such as the Force Concept Inventory3 and Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation.4 There is a need for strong conceptual understanding of the relationships between net force and acceleration and between acceleration and velocity in order to effectively address common force-motion misconceptions;5 there is a large literature concerning student understanding of force and motion.6

1.
John
Clement
, “
Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics
,”
Am. J. Phys.
50
,
66
(
Jan. 1982
).
2.
Lillian C.
McDermott
,
Peter S.
Shaffer
, and
Mark D.
Somers
, “
Research as a guide for teaching introductory mechanics: An illustration in the context of the Atwood's machine
,”
Am. J. Phys.
62
,
46
55
(
Jan. 1994
).
3.
Richard
Hake
, “
Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses
,”
Am. J. Phys.
66
,
64
74
(
Jan. 1998
).
4.
Ronald
Thornton
, “
Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula
,”
Am. J. Phys.
66
,
338
352
(
April 1998
).
5.
Rebecca
Rosenblatt
, “
Systematic study of student understanding of the relationships between the directions of force, velocity, and acceleration in one dimension
,”
Phys. Rev. ST-PER.
7
,
020112
(
2011
).
6.
Lillian C.
McDermott
and
Edward F.
Redish
, “
Resource Letter: PER-1: Physics Education Research
,”
Am. J. Phys.
67
,
755
767
(
Sept. 1999
).
7.
Irving L.
Kofsky
, “
Atwood's machine and the teaching of Newton's second law
,”
Am. J. Phys.
19
,
354
356
(
June 1951
).
8.
Joseph O.
West
and
Barry N.
Weliver
, “
The Atwood machine: Two special cases
,”
Phys. Teach.
37
,
83
85
(
Feb. 1999
).
9.
Michael C.
LoPresto
, “
Another look at Atwood's machine
,”
Phys. Teach.
37
,
82
83
(
Feb. 1999
).
10.
Gordon O.
Johnson
, “
Making Atwood's machine ‘work,’
Phys. Teach.
39
,
154
158
(
March 2001
).
11.
Colleen
McGowan
, “
Framing Discourse for Optimal Learning in Science and Mathematics
,”
PhD dissertation
,
Arizona State University
(
2007
).
12.
Malcolm
Wells
 et al, “
A modeling method for high school physics instruction
,”
Am. J. Phys.
63
,
606
619
(
July 1995
).
13.
See Ref. 12.
14.
See Ref. 3.
AAPT members receive access to The Physics Teacher and the American Journal of Physics as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.