Anthropocentric Reasoning of Weight, Friction, Buoyancy, and Air Resistance among Pre-Service Teachers
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study examines anthropocentric misunderstandings among pre-service educators concerning the forces of weight, friction, buoyancy, and air resistance. A total of 476 first-year students in a Greek Primary Education Department completed an open-ended questionnaire regarding the origins of these forces. Qualitative content analysis categorized responses into six classifications: scientifically accurate explanation, medium-based attribution, anthropocentric reasoning, erroneous application of Newton’s third law, mathematical equation, and other/no response. The majority of participants provided precise explanations for weight and friction; however, less than one-third did so for buoyancy and fewer than one-fifth for air resistance. Approximately 18% provided at least one anthropocentric explanation, such as “friction exists to prevent slipping” or “air resistance facilitates parachuting,” with a minor subgroup employing this rationale for all four forces. These findings indicate that purpose-driven, human-centered explanations endure despite recent university instruction, suggesting fragmented mental models. The findings highlight the necessity for teacher education programs to adopt conceptual-change strategies that directly challenge anthropocentric reasoning and facilitate the cultivation of a coherent scientific understanding.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Betz, N., Leffers, J. S., Thor, E. E. D., Fux, M., de Nesnera, K., Tanner, K. D., & Coley, J. D. (2019). Cognitive construal-consistent instructor language in the undergraduate biology classroom. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 18(4), ar63. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-04-0076 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-04-0076
Bozkurt, E., & Yıldırım, F. S. (2022). Determining the misunderstandings of physics and science teacher candidates about the events related to the buoyancy force. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 12(1), 222-231. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.12.01.23 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.12.01.23
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press / Bradford Books.
Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (pp. 61–82). Routledge.
Çobanoğlu, E. O., & Karakaya, Ç. (2009). The viewpoints of primary education pre-service science teachers about the environment according to anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric approaches. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2513-2518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.443 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.443
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage.
Dempster, E. R. (2025). Anthropocentrism in biology teaching and learning. Journal of Biological Education, 59(5), 759-761. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2025.2578148 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2025.2578148
diSessa, A. A. (2022). A History of Conceptual Change Research: Threads and Fault Lines. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 114-133). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.008
Kelemen, D. (1999). Function, goals and intention: Children’s teleological reasoning about objects. Cognition, 70(3), 241-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00010-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00010-4
Kızılcık, H. Ş., Aygün, M., Şahin, E., Önder-Çelikkanlı, N., Türk, O., Taşkın, T., & Güneş, B. (2021). Possible misconceptions about solid friction. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17(2), 023107. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.023107 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.023107
Kotsis, K. T. (2023). Alternative ideas about concepts of physics are a timelessly valuable tool for physics education. Eurasian Journal of Science and Environmental Education, 3(2), 83-97. https://doi.org/10.30935/ejsee/13776 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30935/ejsee/13776
Kotsis, K. T., & Gavrilas, L. (2025). Review of Scientific Literacy of Pre-Service Teachers on Electromagnetic Radiation. European Journal of Contemporary Education and E-Learning, 3(1), 55-64. https://doi.org/10.59324/ejceel.2025.3(1).05 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59324/ejceel.2025.3(1).05
Kotsis, K. T., & Stylos, G. (2023). Relationship of IQ with alternative ideas of primary school students on the concepts of force and weight. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 4(1), 21-25. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2023.4.1.544 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2023.4.1.544
Kröger, J., Härtig, H., Retelsdorf, J., & Bernholt, S. (2025). Promoting text comprehension through refutation, visualization and con-solidation – A triad approach to facilitate learning from texts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-025-10608-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-025-10608-0
Legare, C. H., Lane, J. D., & Evans, E. M. (2013). Anthropomorphizing science: How does it affect the development of evolutionary concepts? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 59(2), 168-197. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2013.0009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2013.0009
Levy, A. R., & Moore Mensah, F. (2021). Learning through the Experience of Water in Elementary School Science. Water, 13(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13010043 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/w13010043
Lombrozo, T., & Carey, S. (2006). Functional explanation and the function of explanation. Cognition, 99(2), 167-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.12.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.12.009
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276-282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031
Meidell Sigsgaard, A. V., & Preston, C. (2025). A literacy focus in science-teaching preservice primary teachers about semantic gravity. Teaching Science, 71(1), 46-55.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.
Nielson, C., Pitt, E., Fux, M., de Nesnera, K., Betz, N., Leffers, J. S., Tanner, K. D., & Coley, J. D. (2025). Spontaneous anthropocentric language use in university students’ explanations of biological concepts varies by topic and predicts misconception agreement. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 24(1), ar11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.24-07-0198 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.24-07-0198
Panagou, D., Kostara, C., Stylos, G., & Kotsis, K. (2024). Unraveling force and weight misconceptions: A study among medicine enrolled honors high school graduates. European Journal of Physics Education, 15(1), 25-46.
Piaget, J. (1989). The Child’s Conception of the World: A 20th-Century Classic of Child Psychology. Bloomsbury Academic.
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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: a systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.881626 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.881626
Ramma, Y., Bholoa, A., & Watts, M. (2024). In-service physics teachers’ content knowledge: A critical reflection on the case of the upthrust concept. Education Inquiry, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2024.2412878 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2024.2412878
Schroeder, N. L., & Kucera, A. C. (2022). Refutation text facilitates learning: A meta-analysis of between-subjects experiments. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 957-987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09656-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09656-z
Schulze, C., Herrmann, A., Lange-Schubert, K., & Saalbach, H. (2025). Effects of teachers’ co-constructive discourse practices on students’ self-related cognitions and interest in primary science learning. Zeitschrift für Grundschulforschung, 18, 369-390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42278-025-00245-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42278-025-00245-5
Stefanou, M., Stylos, G., Georgopoulos, K., & Kotsis, K. (2023). Primary preservice teachers’ misconceptions and reasoning of thermal concepts in everyday contexts. The International Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 31(1), 127-157. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7955/CGP/v31i01/127-157 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7955/CGP/v31i01/127-157
Stylos, G., Evangelakis, G. A., & Kotsis, K. T. (2008). Misconceptions on classical mechanics by freshman university students: A case study in a Physics Department in Greece. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 1(2), 157-177.
Stylos, G., Sargioti, A., Mavridis, D., & Kotsis, K. T. (2021). Validation of the thermal concept evaluation test for Greek university students’ misconceptions of thermal concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 43(2), 247-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1865587 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1865587
Suhandi, A., Samsudin, A., Fratiwi, N. J., Nurdini, N., Feranie, S., Purwanto, M. G., Linuwih, S., & Coştu, B. (2025). Altering miscon-ceptions: How e-rebuttal texts on Newton’s laws reconstruct students’ mental models. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1472385. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1472385 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1472385
Tuncay-Yüksel, B. (2016). Environmental moral reasoning patterns of pre-service science teachers and their relationships to epistemo-logical beliefs and values [Doctoral dissertation]. Middle East Technical University, Turkey.
Vosniadou, S. (2019). The development of students’ understanding of science. Frontiers in Education, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00032 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00032
Wancham, K., Tangdhanakanond, K., & Kanjanawasee, S. (2023). Sex and grade issues in influencing misconceptions about force and laws of motion: An application of cognitively diagnostic assessment. International Journal of Instruction, 16(2), 437–456. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.16224a DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.16224a
Wang, S., Wang, F., Zhu, Z., Wang, J., Tran, T., & Du, Z. (2024). Artificial intelligence in education: A systematic literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 252(A), Article 124167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124167 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124167
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20259 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20259
Yang, L., Huang, L., Wu, X., Xiong, J., Bao, L., & Xiao, Y. (2024). Assessment of preservice physics teachers’ knowledge of student understanding of force and motion. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 20, 010148. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010148 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010148