- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Student difficulties and alternative conceptions in learning particle motion in force fields

Yiting Wang1, Xiumei Feng1,*, Yuchen Jiang1, Li Xie1,†, Min Xia2, and Lei Bao3,4,5,‡

  • *Contact author: xiumeifeng@mail.ccnu.edu.cn
  • †Contact author: shirlyxieli@yahoo.com
  • ‡Contact author: lei.bao@outlook.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020112 – Published 28 July, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/1xx1-d8ql

Abstract

Understanding particle motion in force fields (PMFF), which encompasses the nature of forces and the relationship between force and motion, is fundamental to mastering mechanics and electromagnetism. Effectively solving PMFF-related problems requires advanced reasoning skills and the ability to apply knowledge across diverse contexts. Despite evidence that students often encounter significant challenges with these concepts, comprehensive assessment tools to reliably evaluate their understanding remain limited. In high school and introductory college physics courses, the most commonly studied force fields include those generated by a point mass or a point charge, as well as uniform gravitational, electric, and magnetic fields. The basic types of motion observed in these fields include uniform linear motion, uniformly accelerated rectilinear motion, uniformly accelerated curvilinear motion, and uniform circular motion. This study developed a nine-item multiple-choice test designed to assess students’ understanding of PMFF concepts. Data were collected from 34 college physics majors using test scores, interviews, and eye-tracking technology. The analysis revealed several alternative conceptions that varied depending on the specific force field context. Students performed relatively well in uniform force field scenarios but faced significant difficulties with fields generated by a point mass or a point charge, as well as uniform magnetic fields. In fields of a point mass or point charge, common misconceptions centered on uniformly accelerated motion. In the uniform magnetic field context, students often struggled to differentiate between uniform linear motion and uniformly accelerated curvilinear motion. Eye-tracking data provided additional insights, revealing attention patterns that corroborated the observed difficulties. These findings highlight critical areas where students face challenges in understanding PMFF. The results can guide future research efforts to develop targeted educational interventions aimed at addressing these specific learning difficulties, ultimately improving student comprehension of PMFF concepts.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (73)

  1. T. I. Smith, K. J. Louis, B. J. Ricci, and N. Bendjilali, Quantitatively ranking incorrect responses to multiple-choice questions using item response theory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010107 (2020).
  2. I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, Common sense concepts about motion, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1056 (1985).
  3. J. L. Docktor and J. P. Mestre, Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020119 (2014).
  4. A. Maries, M. J. Brundage, and C. Singh, Using the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism to investigate progression in student understanding from introductory to advanced levels, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020114 (2022).
  5. R. Trumper and P. Gorsky, A cross-college age study about physics students’ conceptions of force in pre-service training for high school teachers, Phys. Educ. 31, 227 (1996).
  6. S. R. Sia and L. Roleda, Pre-service teachers’ mental models on electricity and magnetism, Adv. Sci. Lett. 24, 7908 (2018).
  7. A. C. Alonzo and J. T. Steedle, Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression, Sci. Educ. 93, 389 (2009).
  8. P. Potvin and G. Cyr, Toward a durable prevalence of scientific conceptions: Tracking the effects of two interfering misconceptions about buoyancy from preschoolers to science teachers, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 54, 1121 (2017).
  9. G. Lee and T. Byun, An explanation for the difficulty of leading conceptual change using a counterintuitive demonstration: The relationship between cognitive conflict and responses, Res. Sci. Educ. 42, 943 (2012).
  10. C. Terry and G. Jones, Alternative frameworks: Newton’s third law and conceptual change, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 8, 291 (1986).
  11. J. Lin, Y. Xing, Y. Hu, J. Zhang, L. Bao, K. Luo, K. Yu, and Y. Xiao, Inhibitory control involvement in overcoming the position-velocity indiscrimination misconception among college physics majors, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010112 (2023).
  12. Anthony P. French, Newtonian Mechanics (W. W. Norton, New York 1971).
  13. D. Maloney, T. O’Kuma, C. Hieggelke, and A. Heuvelen, Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity & magnetism, Am. J. Phys. 69, S12 (2001).
  14. L. Ding, R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and R. Beichner, Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010105 (2006).
  15. L. Hahn and P. Klein, Eye tracking in physics education research: A systematic literature review, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 013102 (2022).
  16. R. Langendorf, Extracting information from the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram: An eye-tracking study, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020121 (2022).
  17. Q. Li, S. Xu, Y. Chen, C. Lu, and S. Zhou, Detecting preservice teachers’ visual attention under prediction and nonprediction conditions with eye-tracking technology, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010134 (2022).
  18. M.-J. Tsai, H.-T. Hou, M.-L. Lai, W.-Y. Liu, and F.-Y. Yang, Visual attention for solving multiple-choice science problem: An eye-tracking analysis, Comput. Educ. 58, 375 (2012).
  19. Y. Bi and T. Reid, Evaluating students’ understanding of statics concepts using eye gaze data, Int. J. Eng. Educ. 33, 225 (2017).
  20. C. Hoyer and R. Girwidz, Animation and interactivity in computer-based physics experiments to support the documentation of measured vector quantities in diagrams: An eye tracking study, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020124 (2020).
  21. National Research Council, Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013).
  22. I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, The initial knowledge state of college physics students, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043 (1985).
  23. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  24. D. Hestenes and M. Wells, A mechanics baseline test, Phys. Teach. 30, 159 (1992).
  25. R. Thornton and D. 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 (1998).
  26. B. M. Notaros, Concept inventory assessment instruments for electromagnetics education, IEEE Antennas Propag. Soc. Int. Symp. 1, 684 (2002).
  27. M. W. McColgan, R. A. Finn, D. L. Broder, and G. E. Hassel, Assessing students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020121 (2017).
  28. P. W. Zitzewitz, Physics: Principles and Problems (McGraw-Hill Education, Columbus, OH, 2013).
  29. P.-K. Tao and R. Gunstone, The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 36, 859 (1999).
  30. K. Rayner, Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search, Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 62, 1457 (2009).
  31. K. Rayner, Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research, Psychol. Bull. 124, 372 (1998).
  32. J. Hyönä, The use of eye movements in the study of multimedia learning, Learn. Instr. 20, 172 (2010).
  33. T. van Gog and K. Scheiter, Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning, Learn. Instr. 20, 95 (2010).
  34. E. Alemdag and K. Cagiltay, A systematic review of eye tracking research on multimedia learning, Comput. Educ. 125, 413 (2018).
  35. S. Brückner, J. Schneider, O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, and H. Drachsler, Epistemic network analyses of economics students’ graph understanding: An eye-tracking study, Sensors 20, 6908 (2020).
  36. S.-C. Chen, H.-C. She, M.-H. Chuang, J.-Y. Wu, J.-L. Tsai, and T.-P. Jung, Eye movements predict students’ computer-based assessment performance of physics concepts in different presentation modalities, Comput. Educ. 74, 61 (2014).
  37. M. A. Just and P. A. Carpenter, A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension, Psychol. Rev. 87, 329 (1980).
  38. S. P. Liversedge and J. M. Findlay, Saccadic eye movements and cognition, Trends Cognit. Sci. 4, 6 (2000).
  39. F. Ke, R. Liu, Z. Sokolikj, I. Dahlstrom-Hakki, and M. Israel, Using eye-tracking in education: Review of empirical research and technology, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 72, 1383 (2024).
  40. P. Klein, J. Viiri, S. Mozaffari, A. Dengel, and J. Kuhn, Instruction-based clinical eye-tracking study on the visual interpretation of divergence: How do students look at vector field plots?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010116 (2018).
  41. S. Becker, L. Knippertz, S. Ruzika, and J. Kuhn, Persistence, context, and visual strategy of graph understanding: Gaze patterns reveal student difficulties in interpreting graphs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020142 (2023).
  42. M. Prokop, L. Pilař, and I. Tichá, Impact of think-aloud on eye-tracking: A comparison of concurrent and retrospective think-aloud for research on decision-making in the game environment, Sensors 20, 2750 (2020).
  43. Y. Wen, J. Lin, Y. Ming, J. Zhang, X. Wu, L. Bao, K. Yu, and Y. Xiao, Role of inhibition in overcoming interferences of misconception under similar feature saliency: An eye-tracking study of the projectile motion problem, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020121 (2024).
  44. A. Susac, A. Bubic, E. Kazotti, M. Planinic, and M. Palmovic, Student understanding of graph slope and area under a graph: A comparison of physics and nonphysics students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020109 (2018).
  45. A. Susac, M. Planinic, A. Bubic, L. Ivanjek, and M. Palmovic, Student recognition of interference and diffraction patterns: An eye-tracking study, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020133 (2020).
  46. M. Al-Rsa’i, J. Khoshman, and K. Abutayeh, Jordanian pre-service physics teacher’s misconceptions about force and motion, J. Turk. Sci. Educ. 17, 528 (2020).
  47. R. Trumper, A longitudinal study of physics students’ conceptions on energy in pre-service training for high school teachers, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 7, 311 (1998).
  48. J. Clement, Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 50, 66 (1982).
  49. Ş. Bayraktar, Misconceptions of Turkish pre-service teachers about force and motion, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 7, 273 (2008).
  50. L. C. McDermott, Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics, Phys. Today 37, No. 7, 24 (1984).
  51. F. Lixia, J. Daqiao, and F. Xiumei, Teaching practice of high school physics based on peer instruction-take “motion of particles in uniform fields” as an example, curriculum, Teach. Mater. Method 34, 86 (2014).
  52. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/1xx1-d8ql for PMFF test, its validity and reliability analysis, and additional eye-tracking data.
  53. E. Bardar and E. Prather, Development and validation of the light and spectroscopy concept inventory, Astron. Educ. Rev. 5, 103 (2006).
  54. T. D. Paustian et al., Development, validation, and application of the microbiology concept inventory, J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 18, 1 (2017).
  55. L. Hu and P. M. Bentler, Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Struct. Equ. Model. 6, 1 (1999).
  56. R. F. DeVellis and C. T. Thorpe, Scale Development: Theory and Applications (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2021).
  57. O. J. Dunn, Multiple comparisons among means, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 56, 52 (1961).
  58. G.-L. Chiou, C.-Y. Hsu, and M.-J. Tsai, Exploring how students interact with guidance in a physics simulation: Evidence from eye-movement and log data analyses, Interact. Learn. Environ. 30, 484 (2022).
  59. , Visual search patterns, information selection strategies, and information anxiety for online information problem solving, Comput. Educ. 172, 104236 (2021).
  60. M.-J. Tsai, A.-H. Wu, I. Bråten, and C.-Y. Wang, What do critical reading strategies look like? Eye-tracking and lag sequential analysis reveal attention to data and reasoning when reading conflicting information, Comput. Educ. 187, 104544 (2022).
  61. R. Bakeman and V. Quera, Analyzing interaction: Sequential analysis with SDIS and GSEQ, in Book and Disk edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, 1995).
  62. P. Mayring, Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution (Social Science Open Access Repository (SSOAR), Klagenfurt, 2014).
  63. K. Rayner, A. Pollatsek, J. Ashby, and C. Clifton, Jr., Psychology of Reading, 2nd ed (Psychology Press, New York, 2011).
  64. A. Susac, A. Bubic, M. Planinic, M. Movre, and M. Palmovic, Role of diagrams in problem solving: An evaluation of eye-tracking parameters as a measure of visual attention, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 013101 (2019).
  65. A. Susac, M. Planinic, A. Bubic, K. Jelicic, and M. Palmovic, Effect of representation format on conceptual question performance and eye-tracking measures, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020114 (2023).
  66. L. Frazier and K. Rayner, Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences, Cognit. Psychol. 14, 178 (1982).
  67. J. S. B. T. Evans, The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation, Psychon. Bull. Rev. 13, 378 (2006).
  68. J. S. B. T. Evans, Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59, 255 (2008).
  69. J. S. B. T. Evans and K. E. Stanovich, Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate, Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8, 223 (2013).
  70. M. C. Linn, The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction, in The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2006), pp. 243–264.
  71. R. Dai, J. C. Fritchman, Q. Liu, Y. Xiao, H. Yu, and L. Bao, Assessment of student understanding on light interference, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020134 (2019).
  72. E. Kim and S.-J. Pak, Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems, Am. J. Phys. 70, 759 (2002).
  73. M. T. H. Chi, P. J. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices, Cognit. Sci. 5, 121 (1981).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020112– Published 28 July, 2025
  • Received 17 December 2024
  • Accepted 8 July 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation