Pre-Service Elementary Teachers' Views on 'Action and Reaction': Focused on their Understandings and Typically-Perceived-Situations (TPS)

초등예비교사의 '작용과 반작용' 개념 -이해 정도와 전형적 인식상황 분석을 중심으로-

  • Received : 2016.10.05
  • Accepted : 2016.11.14
  • Published : 2016.12.31


The purpose of this study is to investigate pre-service elementary teachers' views of the law of action-reaction by examining their degrees of understanding and Typically-Perceived-Situations (TPS). Data were collected from 177 Grade 3 pre-service elementary teachers. The results of analyzing these data show: First, the participants did not sufficiently understand about the law of action-reaction, and their degrees of understanding were different depending on the situation provided in the questionnaire. Second, in relation to the TPSs of the law of action-reaction, the participants thought of irrelevant situations to the law of action-reaction such as "a situation generated by inertia" as well as commonly relevant ones such as "a person pushing a wall", and had somewhat biased TPSs in terms of 'action type' and 'result motion type' of action-reaction. Finally, several suggestions on the science education for promotion of understanding about the law of action-reaction were given.


action-reaction;Newton's third law;force;Typically-Perceived-Situation (TPS);pre-service elementary teachers


Supported by : 공주교육대학교


  1. Brown, D. E. (1989). Students' concept of force: The importance of understanding Newton's third law. Physic Education, 24(6), 353-359.
  2. Cha, Y., Seo, S., & Kwon, J. (2001). Cognitive conflict and conceptual change through dyadic debate in learning about action and reaction. Journal of Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 21(2), 411-421.
  3. Cho, Y., Kim, Y., & Kwon, J. (2004). Characteristics of explanatory hypothesis formation by anxiety types in high school students cognitive conflict about action-reaction task (I). Journal of Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 24(3), 596-611.
  4. Clement, J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of physics, 50(1), 66-71.
  5. Driver, R. (1983). The pupils as scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  6. Halliday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (2001). Fundamentals of physics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  7. Hellingman, C. (1989). Do forces have twin brothers?. Physics Education, 24(1), 36-41.
  8. Hewitt, P. G. (2007). Conceptual physics (Translated into Korean by I. Kim, H. Park, J. Um, & K. Jeong). Seoul: Pearson Education Korea.
  9. Hong, J., Kim, Y., & Kwon, J. (2007). Understanding students' response characteristics by cognitive conflict levels and result predictions on action-reaction and electric circuits learning task. Journal of Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 27(4), 354-365.
  10. Jeon, C., & Lee, J. (2007). The characteristics of university students' difficulties in learning Newtonian mechanics (I): Focusing on the contents, resources and resolutions of their difficulties. Sae Mulli, 55(3), 134-142.
  11. Jo, K. (2005). Using examples and students' conceptual understanding in school science: Focusing on the concepts of mechanics in middle school. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Seoul National University.
  12. Joung, Y. J. (2009). Children's Typically-Perceived-Situations of floating and sinking. International Journal of Science Education, 31(1), 101-127.
  13. Joung, Y. J., & Gunstone, R. (2010). Children's Typically-Perceived-Situations of force and no force in the context of Australia and Korea. International Journal of Science Education, 32(12), 1595-1615.
  14. Kang, T., Joung, Y. J., & Song (2009). The characteristics of Typically Perceived Situations (TPSs)and critical examples: Focusing on secondary students' ideas of force and mechanical energy conversion. Journal of Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 28(6), 579-591.
  15. Kim, M. -H. (1995). The role of guided discussion activity on high school students' conceptual change about force and motion. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Seoul National University.
  16. Kim, J. (2009). Comparison of concepts on force between gifted students and college students. Sae Mulli, 58(4), 403-408.
  17. Lee, D. -H., Noh, S., Jhun, Y., Yoon, H. -G., Joung, Y. J., Kang, H., Kim, G., Kim, Y., Kim, J., Park, M., Park, S., Park, Y., Park. J., Park. J., Seo, Y., Shim, B., Woo, S., Yoo, M., Lee., H., & Jang, S. (2014). White book on the development of 2009 elementary science textbook (grade 3-4). Seoul: Mirae-N.
  18. Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining the “at rest” condition of an object. The physics teacher, 20(1), 10-14.
  19. Newton, I. (1729). The mathematical principles of natural philosophy (Translated into English by A. Motte). London.
  20. Ministry of Education (2007). The 2007 Revised Science Curriculum.
  21. Ministry of Education (2010). Science (3-1). Seoul: Kumsung.
  22. Ministry of Education (2011). The 2009 Revised Science Curriculum.
  23. Ministry of Education (2014). Science (3-1). Seoul: Mirae-N.
  24. Ministry of Education (2015). The 2015 Revised Science Curriculum.
  25. Oh, K. -S., & Kwon, J. -S. (1988). The source of students' misconception about Newton's third law. Journal of Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 8(1), 57-72.
  26. Song, J., Kim, I., Kim, Y., Kwon, S., Oh, W., & Park, J. (2004). Students' physics misconception map (학생의 물리 오개념 地圖). Seoul: Bookshill.
  27. Terry, C., & Jones, G. (1986). Alternative frameworks: Newton's third law and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 8(3), 291-298.
  28. Viennot, L. (1979). Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics. International Journal of Science Education, 1(2), 205-221.