Among the student ideas about forces discussed in the literature, perhaps the most commonly reported is the notion of an impetus force, or the “belief that there is a force inside a moving object that keeps it going and causes it to have some speed.” For example, Clement asked university students taking introductory mechanics to draw a free-body diagram for a coin that has been tossed upward. He found that students often drew an arrow in the direction of the coin’s motion, at a point midway between the initial toss and the turnaround point, sometimes providing reasoning that suggested that the arrow corresponds to a “force from your hand” or the “force of the throw.” Clement interpreted these responses as indicating that “student[s] may believe that continuing motion implies the presence of a continuing force in the same direction, as a necessary cause of the motion.” As another example, in a study conducted with undergraduate students at Johns Hopkins University, McCloskey, Caramazza, and Green asked students to draw the path a ball will follow after it exits the curved tubes pictured in Fig. 1. The authors found that students often drew curved trajectories for the ball exiting each tube, and they coined the term “curvilinear impetus principle” to describe students’ reasoning. They write that students reasoned as though “an object constrained to move in a curved path acquires a curvilinear impetus that causes it to continue in a curved trajectory for some time after the constraints on its motion are removed.”

1.
M. S.
Steinberg
,
D. E.
Brown
,
J.
Clement
, “
Genius is not immune to persistent misconceptions: Conceptual difficulties impeding Isaac Newton and contemporary physics students
,”
Int. J. Sci. Educ.
12
(
3
),
265
273
(
1990
).
2.
I.
Galili
and
V.
Bar
, “
Motion implies force: Where to expect vestiges of the misconception?
Int. J. Sci. Educ.
14
(
1
),
63
81
(
1992
).
3.
L.
Viennot
, “
Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics
,”
Eur. J. Sci. Educ.
1
(
2
),
205
221
(
1979
).
4.
M.
McCloskey
,
A.
Caramazza
, and
B.
Green
, “
Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: Naive beliefs about the motion of objects
,”
Science
210
(
4474
),
1139
1141
(
1980
).
5.
J.
Minstrell
, FACETs, http://www.facetinnovations.com/daisy-public-website/fihome/home.html, accessed Jan. 6, 2017.
6.
A.
Caramazza
,
M.
McCloskey
, and
B.
Green
, “
Naive beliefs in ‘sophisticated’ subjects: Misconceptions about trajectories of objects
,”
Cognition
9
,
117
123
(
1981
).
7.
J.
Clement
, “
Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics
,”
Am. J. Phys.
50
,
66
71
(
Jan.
1982
).
8.
M.
McCloskey
, “
Intuitive physics
,”
Sci. Am.
248
,
124
130
(
April
1983
).
9.
L. C.
McDermott
, “
Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics
,”
Phys. Today
37
(
7
),
24
32
(
1984
).
10.
N.
Sadanand
and
J.
Kess
, “
Concepts in force and motion
,”
Phys. Teach.
28
,
0530
533
(
Nov.
1990
).
11.
R. K.
Thornton
and
D. R.
Sokoloff
, “
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
351
(
April
1998
).
12.
I. A.
Halloun
and
D.
Hestenes
, “
Common sense concepts about motion
,”
Am. J. Phys.
53
,
1056
1065
(
Nov.
1985
).
13.
J.
Clement
, “Students’ Alternative Conceptions in Mechanics: A Coherent System of Preconceptions?” in
H.
Helm
and
J. D.
Novak
(Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Seminar: Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics
(
Cornell University Press
,
New York
,
1983
), pp.
310
315
.
14.
D.
Hestenes
,
M.
Wells
, and
G.
Swackhamer
, “
Force Concept Inventory
,”
Phys. Teach.
30
,
141
158
(
March
1992
).
15.
D.
Hammer
and
E.
van Zee
,
Seeing the Science in Children’s Thinking: Case Studies of Student Inquiry in Physical Science
(
Heinemann
,
Portsmouth, NH
,
2006
).
16.
D. E.
Brown
,
D.
Hammer
, and
P. A.
Alexander
, “Conceptual Change in Physics,” in
S.
Vosniadou
(Ed),
International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change
(
Routledge
,
New York
,
2008
), pp.
127
154
.
17.
B. W.
Harrer
,
V. J.
Flood
, and
M. C.
Wittmann
, “
Productive resources in students’ ideas about energy: An alternative analysis of Watts’ original interview transcripts
,”
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
9
(
2
),
23101
(
2013
).
18.
D.
Hammer
, “
Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions?
J. Learn. Sci.
5
(
2
),
97
127
(
1996
).
19.
G. J.
Posner
,
K. A.
Strike
,
P. W.
Hewson
, and
W. A.
Gertzog
, “
Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change
,”
Sci. Educ.
66
(
2
),
211
227
(
1982
).
20.
L. C.
McDermott
, “
Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned–Closing the gap
,”
Am. J. Phys.
59
,
301
315
(
April
1991
).
21.
A. A.
diSessa
, “
Toward an epistemology of physics
,”
Cognit. Instruct.
10
(
2-3
),
105
225
(
1993
).
22.
D.
Hammer
, “
Student resources for learning introductory physics
,”
Am. J. Phys.
68
,
S52
S59
(
July
2000
).
23.
D.
Hammer
,
A.
Elby
,
R. E.
Scherr
, and
E. F.
Redish
, “Resources, Framing, and Transfer,” in
J. P.
Mestre
(Ed.),
Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective
(
Information Age Publishing Inc.
,
2005
), pp.
89
119
.
24.
J. P.
Smith
,
A. A.
diSessa
, and
J.
Roschelle
, “
Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition
,”
J. Learn. Sci.
3
(
2
),
115
163
(
1993
).
25.
We consider all of the changes we made to the original pendulum question to be clarifying, rather than changing its meaning. For example, we changed the image for Ball B to include a dotted line that traced the ball’s trajectory and an arrow to indicate motion, rather than two curved arrows that indicate both the ball’s trajectory and its motion.
26.
Readers can view the appendix at TPT Online, http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/10.0003660, under the Supplemental tab.
27.
B. W.
Harrer
, “
Identifying Productive Resources in Secondary School Students’ Discourse about Energy
,” PhD dissertation,
Department of Physics, University of Maine
(
2013
).
28.
Resources theory23, 29 would argue that aspects of the modified pendulum question likely cue some of these ideas and the ones reported later in the paper. For example, the arrow drawn on the pendulum ball may resemble (for some students) a free-body diagram and so cue ideas about forces.
29.
E. F.
Redish
, “A Theoretical Framework for Physics Education Research: Modeling Student Thinking,” in
E.
Redish
and
M.
Vicentini
(Eds.)
Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI
(
Italian Physical Society
,
2004
).
30.
Students who asserted that the tension force equals the weight force may also seeking an active agent of motion. For example, the third quote above argues that mg = FT “since [the ball’s] movement is mostly horizontal,” suggesting that no vertical movement (or change in motion) implies no net vertical force.
31.
The tendency to attribute current motion to past forces is also inconsistent with the Newtonian view that motion is relative. That is, observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree about the motion of other objects, but they will agree about past and current forces on those objects.
32.
D.
Hammer
,
F.
Goldberg
, and
S.
Fargason
, “
Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom
,”
Rev. Sci. Math. ICT Educ.
6
(
1
),
51
72
(
2012
).

Supplementary Material

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.