Student use of vectors in introductory mechanics

Sergio Flores
a)
and Stephen E. Kanim
b)
Department of Physics, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003
Christian H. Kautz
c)
Department of Physics, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244
Received 7 September 2003; accepted 23 December 2003
Most students initial exposure to physics is in the context of kinematics and dynamics. An
understanding of how these topics relate to each other requires the ability to reason about vectors
that represent forces and kinematic quantities. We present data that suggest that after traditional
instruction in mechanics many students lack this ability. Modications to instruction can
signicantly improve student performance on questions about vector addition and subtraction and
increase the likelihood that students employ vectors in their attempt to solve mechanics problems.
However, an increased emphasis on these topics has so far been only moderately successful in
promoting the level of prociency required to understand the connection between force and
acceleration as vector quantities. We describe some of the procedural and reasoning difculties we
have observed in students use of vectors. 2004 American Association of Physics Teachers.
DOI: 10.1119/1.1648686
I. INTRODUCTION
In most introductory physics courses, considerable empha-
sis is placed on the application of Newtons second law. An
understanding of this law as applied to motion in two dimen-
sions is assumed when subsequent topics are presented in the
introductory course and in more advanced physics and engi-
neering courses. The importance of Newtons second law in
the teaching of introductory physics prompted us to investi-
gate the extent to which students recognize that this law is a
relationship between vectors.
We believe that a solid understanding of Newtons second
law as a vector equation is important for students to appre-
ciate the coherence of the material that they are taught in
their rst-semester physics course. For most students, kine-
matics and dynamics are the rst topics encountered in phys-
ics. As such, the manner in which these topics are presented
serves to inform students about the goals and outcomes of
the course as well as what physicists view as important about
their subject. For many instructors, Newtons second law
serves as a unifying theme, connecting many of the ideas of
introductory mechanics. In contrast, many students view
physics as a sequence of specic situations for which they
must memorize applicable equations without recognizing the
connections between these situations. For example, we have
observed that students failure to understand the denition of
acceleration as a vector quantity can lead them to interpret
the term mv
2
/r as a special type of interaction that is present
only in circular motion rather than as another instance of the
term ma on the right-hand side of Newtons second law. We
hope that an investigation of student understanding of the
vector nature of the relation between kinematic quantities
and forces can provide guidance toward the design of course
modications that strengthen students view of physics as a
coherent eld of study rather than a collection of individual
facts.
In this paper, we describe results from our preliminary
investigation of student understanding of Newtons second
law as a vector equation. The questions we hope to answer
with this investigation are 1 whether students recognize
that the second law relates the directions of net force and
acceleration as well as the magnitudes of these quantities; 2
whether they understand the procedures for vector addition
and subtraction that are necessary to nd net force and ac-
celeration, respectively; and 3 whether they can reason
qualitatively about force and acceleration as vector quanti-
ties.
In addition to results from traditional courses taught with-
out signicant modication, we present data from courses
where to varying extents the emphasis and sequence of the
curriculum have been modied in order to focus on improv-
ing student understanding of vectors and to promote a stron-
ger sense of the coherence of mechanics. In comparing the
performance of students from these courses, we have seen
that the modications we have made have resulted in an
increase in students spontaneous use of vectors in solving
various problems. However, we also emphasize that improv-
ing student understanding of vectors remains a challenge.
II. PREVIOUS RELATED RESEARCH
There is an extensive body of research on student under-
standing of mechanics topics.
1
In particular, student difcul-
ties with the relationship between acceleration and velocity
have been noted in a variety of studies.
2
Students ideas
about the relationship between force and motion have also
been documented.
3
Although most of this research has been
conducted in the context of one-dimensional motion, there
have been some studies of student understanding of the vec-
tor nature of acceleration. Reif and Allen
4
asked students in
an introductory course and physics faculty members to de-
scribe the direction of acceleration for the motion of objects
along various paths. They found that both novices and ex-
perts had difculty with qualitative questions about the vec-
tor nature of acceleration. Although they generally answered
the questions correctly, there was an initial tendency by the
experts in the study to reason inappropriately on the basis of
forces rather than answering purely on the basis of kinemat-
ics. Shaffer
5
asked rst-year and advanced physics graduate
students to show the direction of acceleration for a child on a
swing at various positions during a half-period of the motion.
Only 6 of 48 graduate students were able to show the ap-
460 460 Am. J. Phys. 72 4, April 2004 http://aapt.org/ajp 2004 American Association of Physics Teachers
proximate direction of the acceleration for all positions. The
most common incorrect responses were to include only the
radial or only the tangential components of the acceleration.
There also has been some research on student understand-
ing of vectors. Knight
6
conducted a survey of student knowl-
edge of vectors at the beginning of an introductory mechan-
ics course and found that about half of the students in a
calculus-based introductory course enter with no knowledge
of vectors and only about one-third have sufcient vector
knowledge to proceed with mechanics. Recently, Nguyen
and Meltzer
7
described pre- and post-tests of student knowl-
edge of vector properties and vector addition for students in
introductory mechanics courses. They concluded that over
one-quarter of the students completing a calculus-based me-
chanics course and one-half completing the algebra-based
course were unable to add vectors in two dimensions. In a
previous investigation of student understanding of vectors in
electrostatics,
8
one of us SEK found that many students
have difculty in reasoning about net electric forces and
elds from collections of point sources, and that additional
difculties are introduced when trying to reason about eld
and force vectors from continuous charge distributions.
We also can infer from results from nationally adminis-
tered tests that questions involving force or acceleration as
vector quantities are difcult for many students. For ex-
ample, on the Mechanics Baseline Test,
9
one question re-
quires students to compare the magnitudes of four force vec-
tors acting on an object that is moving at constant speed.
Another question asks students for the direction of accelera-
tion for a block when it is at the lowest point on a curved
ramp. Students performed poorly on these questions after
standard instruction. About 36% could answer the force
question correctly, and only 18% answered the acceleration
question correctly. The Force Concept Inventory
10
does not
test for understanding of vectors: The only question that re-
quired an understanding of vectors was removed when the
test was revised.
These investigations suggest that a conceptual understand-
ing of Newtons second law as a vector equation is not a
typical outcome of the introductory course. Indeed, even ad-
ditional coursework in mechanics does not promote this un-
derstanding for many who go on in physics.
III. CONTEXT FOR RESEARCH
We present data from interviews of students conducted at
New Mexico State University. In addition, we describe re-
sults from questions asked on examinations given in intro-
ductory calculus-based physics courses at the University of
Washington, Syracuse University, and at New Mexico State
University.
We would characterize the instruction in some sections at
New Mexico State as traditional. In these courses, there have
been no attempts to modify the content of the course to ad-
dress conceptual issues specic to vectors. In contrast, the
instruction at the University of Washington, Syracuse, and
other sections at New Mexico State has been modied. In
these modied courses, changes have been made to the cur-
riculum and instruction to strengthen conceptual understand-
ing in general; at New Mexico State a specic focus on stu-
dent understanding of the use of vectors has been
incorporated. We will briey describe the calculus-based me-
chanics course at these institutions, and outline the course
modications intended to promote conceptual knowledge of
vectors as it applies to Newtons laws and kinematics.
New Mexico State Universitytraditional. The introduc-
tory sequence at New Mexico State consists of 150 min of
lecture per week. There is no recitation section. Homework
is assigned from the course textbook or online using
WebAssign.
11
Some majors that require this mechanics
course also require the associated laboratory while others do
not. About half of the students enrolled in the course take the
laboratory course. The lecture section and the laboratory are
graded separately.
Syracuse University and the University of Washington
modied. Courses taught at Syracuse and the University of
Washington include 150 min per week of lecture and a re-
quired 3-h lab. At both universities, there is an additional
required 1-h meeting where students work through exercises
from Tutorials in Introductory Physics.
12
The tutorials take
the place of more traditional recitation sections. In the tuto-
rials, however, students work in small groups through
research-based exercises designed to address common stu-
dent difculties. The emphasis of the tutorials is on concep-
tual understanding rather than on the traditional problem
solving that characterizes many recitation sections. In addi-
tion, instruction at Syracuse includes a 1-h problem-solving
workshop. The tutorials have been effective at promoting
student conceptual understanding of a wide variety of phys-
ics topics.
13
A more detailed description of the tutorials and
their implementation can be found in Ref. 14.
As part of the tutorials, students are asked explicitly to
construct change-in-velocity vectors and to reason about ac-
celeration based on this construction in both one- and two-
dimensional kinematics. In subsequent tutorials, the system-
atic construction of free-body diagrams is stressed, and
students are asked to reason about the relation between an
objects motion and the forces exerted on it.
Lecture instruction at Syracuse was modied to include
time for students to work on qualitative questions and to
discuss their reasoning about these questions with other stu-
dents. These lectures closely followed the model described in
Ref. 15.
New Mexico State Universitymodied. In courses taught
by one of the authors at New Mexico State, many modica-
tions were made to improve student use and understanding of
vectors. The course sequence was modied so that forces
were introduced rst in constant-velocity including v0)
situations. Vectors and vector addition were introduced in
this context. Kinematics was introduced subsequently, and
vector subtraction was taught when velocity and acceleration
were discussed. Although this forces-rst sequence of the
course resembles the one found in a recently published
textbook,
16
a standard-sequence text was used.
There was an increased emphasis on conceptual under-
standing in the lecture and on homework assignments. Many
homework assignments, particularly the earlier ones, were
composed primarily of conceptual exercises. For example,
one assignment asked students only to draw free-body dia-
grams for a variety of situations. As the semester progressed,
the assignments became gradually more traditional, requiring
the use of equations to obtain a numerical result. Frequently,
lectures included time for students to do in-class exercises.
Reasoning about dynamics and kinematic quantities based on
graphical vector construction was stressed on homework, in
lecture, and on examinations.
In summary, we have analyzed student responses to ques-
461 461 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 4, April 2004 Flores, Kanim, and Kautz
tions asked after three different modes of instruction: 1
instruction without modications that are likely to inuence
student performance on vector questions in mechanics, 2
instruction that includes tutorials but no other modications
that specically emphasize student use and understanding of
vectors, and 3 instruction that incorporates substantial
modications designed to improve student understanding of
vectors.
IV. STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF VECTORS IN
MECHANICS AFTER INSTRUCTION
We asked a variety of questions to probe student under-
standing of vectors in the context of mechanics. The ques-
tions can be categorized roughly into four types that are dis-
cussed separately below: questions that assess student ability
to add or subtract vectors in the absence of any physics con-
text Sec. IVA, questions that probe student understanding
of the vector nature of forces Sec. IVB and of kinematic
quantities Sec. IVC, and questions that test student ability
to relate force and acceleration as given by Newtons second
law Sec. IVD. In all cases, students were asked to explain
the reasoning they used to arrive at their answer.
A. Assessment of vector skills
We describe two tasks given to probe student familiarity
with simple vector operations. These tasks were designed to
help distinguish a general lack of skills in manipulating vec-
tors from difculties that are more specic to the context of
Newtons laws. Both tasks refer to Fig. 1, which shows two
equal-length vectors that make an angle of slightly less than
180 with each other. Students were asked to state whether
the magnitudes of i the vector sum A

and ii the vector

difference A

are greater than, less than, or equal to that

of one of the original vectors that is, six units and to show
the directions of the sum and difference vectors.
1. Vector addition question
When this question was administered as part of an exami-
nation after traditional instruction at New Mexico State,
about 50% of the 120 students answered correctly that the
resultant had a magnitude of less than six units. Only about
30% were able to answer the question about magnitude cor-
rectly as well as give a correct direction for the vector sum.
Some students treated vectors as scalars or followed incor-
rect algorithms when adding them: About 10% answered that
the resultant is greater than 6 because the magnitudes of the
two vectors must be added with about half of these stating
explicitly that the resultant would have a magnitude of 12. A
more frequent response, given by about 30% of the students
was 72, the result obtained by inappropriately applying the
Pythagorean theorem for the hypotenuse of a right triangle.
Results after instruction that included an emphasis on
graphical vector manipulation differed greatly from the re-
sults reported above, with percentages of correct answers
ranging from above 75% to about 95%. Correct answers for
both the direction and magnitude of A

ranged from about

60% at Syracuse to 85% at the University of Washington.
The errors noted above after traditional instruction made up
less than 10% of the responses at Syracuse and were practi-
cally absent at the University of Washington and after modi-
ed instruction at New Mexico State.
2. Vector subtraction question
After traditional instruction at New Mexico State, about
60% of the students correctly answered that the difference
A

would be greater than 6. However, only about one-

quarter were able to give both a magnitude and a direction
for A

with correct reasoning. Many students again inap-

propriately applied the Pythagorean theorem, thereby obtain-
ing a correct comparison of the magnitude. About 15%
gave the magnitude of the difference as zero.
After modied instruction, about 90% at New Mexico
State and at Syracuse, and about 80% at the University of
Washington were able to state correctly that the magnitude of
A

was greater than six units. About 70% at New Mexico

State and at Syracuse, and about 50% at the University of
Washington gave a correct answer for both magnitude and
direction. There were a variety of incorrect procedures ex-
hibited in determining this vector difference, with no single
error comprising more than 15% of the responses.
3. Commentary on vector operations
Results from the vector addition and subtraction tasks in-
dicate that after traditional instruction, many students in an
introductory calculus-based course have difculties perform-
ing basic vector operations and interpreting their answers.
Our results are consistent with those reported for vector ad-
dition in Ref. 7. Furthermore, the results suggest that as
many as two-thirds of these students do not have the skills
required to tackle qualitative questions that involve addition
or subtraction of vectors for nding, for example, a net force
or an average acceleration. Not surprisingly, when we have
asked such questions after traditional instruction, we found
that many students do not consider the vector nature of these
quantities at all.
Of note in the responses after traditional instruction was
the large number of students who inappropriately applied the
Pythagorean theorem. We have observed this problem on
other questions and in interviews. Many student responses
indicate a belief that the Pythagorean theorem provides a rule
for nding the magnitude of the resultant of the sum of any
two non-collinear vectors.
Modications to the curriculum that stress the develop-
ment of a conceptual understanding of the material, includ-
ing graphical vector manipulation, signicantly reduced the
incidence of errors in graphical vector addition and subtrac-
Fig. 1. A question requiring the addition and subtraction of two vectors.
462 462 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 4, April 2004 Flores, Kanim, and Kautz
tion. There were, however, some errors elicited that were
relatively common. At New Mexico State, approximately
15% of all answers showed the resultant vector as directed
upward, thereby closing the loop when added to vectors A

and B

. About 20% made this mistake on other questions in

which students were required to add vectors.
B. Investigation of student understanding of vectors in
the context of forces
To apply Newtons second law as a vector equation, stu-
dents must be able to add force vectors to obtain a net force
or resultant. Typically, students are taught to break vectors
into orthogonal components and to add the components.
Many instructors also give examples of graphical addition of
vectors. Results from interviews conducted at the University
of Washington in the context of electrostatics suggested that
many students had difculty reasoning qualitatively about
vector addition and about the relation between vectors and
their components. Specically, students often made errors
when reasoning about how the magnitude of a resultant de-
pended on the directions of the individual forces. The two
questions described in this section were designed to test
whether this difculty is present in the context of adding
forces in general or whether it is specic to electrostatics.
1. The superposition question
In the superposition question Fig. 2, students are asked
to compare the magnitudes of the net forces on two objects.
Two forces of magnitude 6 N are exerted on object C; four
forces of magnitude 3 N are exerted on object D. The direc-
tions are such that the two forces exerted on object C make a
right angle, as do the outermost forces exerted on object D.
Because the two innermost forces on object D have larger
vertical components, the net force on object D is larger than
that on object C. An example of a correct student response is
given in Fig. 3.
We asked this question after modied instruction in me-
chanics at the University of Washington and New Mexico
State. About 50% of the 616 students at the University of
Washington and about 55% of the 142 students at New
Mexico State correctly stated that the net force on object C is
less than the net force on object D. About 30% at New
Mexico State and about 10% at the University of Washington
stated that the net force was greater in case C. About 35% at
the University of Washington and 10% at New Mexico State
stated that the net forces were the same.
A small fraction of the students who answered that the net
forces were equal treated the forces as scalars, stating for
example that they are equal because both the net force of C
and D are 12 N. More often, however, students seemed to
recognize that they were adding vectors but used faulty rea-
soning about vector addition. Some concluded that because
in both cases the directions of the net force and the sums of
the individual magnitudes are the same, both net forces must
be identical:
Same. As in object C the horizontal forces
cancel through symmetry so it is just the sum
of the vertical forces that is taken into account
for the net force: 66333312.
Other students included a correct graphical vector addition
for the two cases as part of their answer, but nonetheless
concluded that the sum is greater in case C or that the sums
are equal. An example is shown in Fig. 4, where the student
correctly added the forces in the superposition question, but
then incorrectly concluded that the vector sum was equal to
12 N.
We have observed student difculties in interpreting cor-
rectly drawn vector diagrams in terms of the magnitudes of
the constituent vectors in responses to other questions. For
example, on a question in which the three forces exerted on
an object in equilibrium formed a right triangle, many stu-
dents failed to recognize that the hypotenuse must be the
largest force.
Fig. 2. The superposition question.
Fig. 3. A correct student response to the superposition question.
Fig. 4. An example of an incorrect student response to the superposition
question.
463 463 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 4, April 2004 Flores, Kanim, and Kautz
2. The static gymnast question
In the static gymnast question Fig. 5, students were
shown a drawing of a gymnast suspended at rest by two
nonvertical ropes. The weight of the gymnast was W
500 N or her mass was m50 kg, using g10 m/s
2
). The
students were asked whether the magnitude of the tension in
the left rope was greater than, less than, or equal to 250 N
that is, one-half of the gymnasts weight. In this question
unlike in the superposition question the forces exerted were
not shown explicitly.
Even after modied instruction, students had difculty
with this question. At Syracuse, about 20% correctly an-
swered with correct reasoning that the tension in the left
rope would be greater than half the weight. About 70% stated
that the tension would be equal to 250 N, with most of these
students reasoning that because the angles of the ropes were
the same, the tensions would be equal to each other and
therefore equal to one-half of the weight. We also asked this
question in a calculus-based course at a university in
Mexico, where after traditional instruction only 4 of 191 stu-
dents were able to give a correct answer with correct reason-
ing. As at Syracuse, about 70% answered that the tensions
were equal.
At New Mexico State, somewhat greater improvements
were achieved. About 45% of 65 students were able to give a
correct answer supported by correct reasoning. About 20%
stated that the tensions would be equal. More than half of the
New Mexico State students included a free-body diagram as
part of their answer, and about a third of the students explic-
itly attempted to add the tension and weight force vectors
graphically such that they would result in a net force of zero.
As with the superposition question, some students who
showed a correct vector sum were unable to reason geometri-
cally about the magnitudes of the vectors.
3. Commentary on vector use in the context of forces
After traditional instruction, only a small fraction of stu-
dents were successful in answering the questions described
in this section. The kinematics tutorials used at Syracuse and
at the University of Washington provide students with an
opportunity to practice vector addition and subtraction in one
and two dimensions in the context of the denition of veloc-
ity and acceleration.
12
The subsequent tutorials on forces,
tension, and Newtons laws require students to reason about
the magnitudes of forces. Although student performance on
questions such as the ones we have described is improved
through tutorial instruction, the overall success rate is still
low.
Through more extensive modications to instruction that
were intended to promote understanding of forces as vectors,
one of the authors SEK was able to increase the number of
students who use vectors to solve problems about forces.
However, in doing so we exposed or possibly introduced a
number of procedural and reasoning difculties associated
with the addition of forces such as the tendency to close the
loop with the resultant vector or difculties with geometri-
cal reasoning about magnitudes. Despite these modications,
the overall improvement in performance on these questions
was still disappointing.
As in electrostatics, many students hold incorrect beliefs
about the nature of specic forces that interfere with their
ability to reason about these forces correctly. For example,
on the gymnast question and other problems involving ten-
sion students frequently relate the tension in a rope to its
length; some of them associating greater length with greater
tension, some of them the opposite. This belief has been
explicitly expressed in interviews and in examination ques-
tions about objects suspended by two ropes of unequal
length. Other difculties with tension have been identied in
Ref. 17.
C. Investigation of student understanding of vectors in
the context of kinematics
In the context of motion in two or three dimensions, we
expect students to be able to reason about the direction of the
acceleration at a given point on an objects path. An approxi-
mate direction can be found by comparing velocities at two
nearby points in order to determine the difference v

. One
of the following questions asks students to nd the direction
of this difference; the other asks for an approximate direction
of the acceleration.
1. Moon question
The moon question, shown in Fig. 6a, includes a draw-
ing of the orbit of the moon around the earth, with two lunar
positions marked at 90 from each other. Velocity vectors are
shown for the two positions. Students were asked to identify
the correct change-in-velocity vector v

for the correspond-

ing time interval from among six choices. The choices shown
in Fig. 6b include the correct answer choice e, a vector
that is in the direction of the sum of the two velocity vectors
choice b, and zero choice c.
After traditional instruction at New Mexico State only
15% of 132 students answered correctly. About one-quarter
answered that there was no change in velocity. The most
common answer given by about half the students was
choice b, corresponding to the vector sum of the initial and
nal velocities. Several students included a vector diagram
with their response showing the addition of the two given
velocity vectors. Other examination questions and student
interviews on acceleration yielded similar results. For ex-
ample, when asked about the acceleration of a vertically
thrown ball at the highest point of its trajectory, many stu-
dents justied their claim that the acceleration is zero with a
vector diagram in which they added velocities rather than
subtracting them.
When we asked the moon question after modied instruc-
tion at Syracuse, about 50% of 272 students chose the correct
Fig. 5. The stationary hanging gymnast question.
464 464 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 4, April 2004 Flores, Kanim, and Kautz
answer. Although fewer than 10% stated that the change in
velocity was zero, about 35% chose answer b. Many of
these students explicitly stated that they used vector addi-
tion to nd the change in velocity vector. After modied
instruction at New Mexico State, 90% of 100 students chose
the correct answer.
2. Car slowing down on a hill
In this question Fig. 7, students were asked to indicate
the direction of the acceleration vector of a car that is slow-
ing down after having passed the crest of a hill. A correct
answer can be found either by explicit construction via
change in velocity vectors or by reasoning about tangential
and radial components of acceleration. After modied in-
struction, about 50% of 248 students at Syracuse and about
70% of 75 students at New Mexico State answered correctly.
Almost one-quarter of the students at Syracuse answered that
the acceleration was tangent to the hill and opposite to the
direction of motion.
Typical correct answers at Syracuse shown in Fig. 8a
and at New Mexico State Fig. 8b reect instructional dif-
ferences between the respective courses. In the tutorial on
two-dimensional motion at Syracuse, students construct ve-
locity and acceleration vectors for an object moving on a
curved path. They then draw conclusions about the angle
between the velocity and acceleration vectors for cases in
which the object is moving at constant speed, speeding up,
and slowing down. About one-third of the Syracuse students
who obtained a correct answer based their reasoning on the
angle between velocity and acceleration, and about one-half
based their reasoning on radial and tangential components of
acceleration as emphasized in the lecture portion of the
course. At New Mexico State, graphical vector subtraction
was emphasized in lecture and on homework assignments,
and about 90% of the correct answers were obtained in this
fashion. Only 4 students at Syracuse answered this way, and
only 5 students at New Mexico State argued on the basis of
radial and tangential acceleration. The most common errors
at New Mexico State were made by drawing the change-in-
velocity vector opposite to the correct direction, and obtain-
ing a purely radial acceleration by drawing initial and nal
velocity vectors of the same length.
3. Commentary on vectors in kinematics
After traditional instruction, most students are unable to
determine the direction of the difference between two veloc-
ity vectors or to nd an approximate direction of the accel-
eration vector. Although improvement was made in student
performance after modied instruction, there remained a
large fraction of students who have difculties in situations
that involve changing speed and direction. As with addition
of forces, modications to instruction resulted in a substan-
tial increase in the fraction of students explicitly using vector
concepts to answer such questions.
Student strategies for solving certain kinematics questions
appear to be inuenced by their instruction in lecture in ad-
dition to other components of the course. Consequently, the
type and prevalence of errors also seem to be affected.
Fig. 6. a A multiple-choice question about the change in velocity of the
moon. b Response choices for the moon question.
Fig. 7. Aquestion about the acceleration of a car slowing down after passing
the crest of a hill.
Fig. 8. Typical student responses to the car slowing down question: a from
Syracuse University; b from New Mexico State University.
465 465 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 4, April 2004 Flores, Kanim, and Kautz
D. Investigation of student understanding of vectors in
the context of dynamics
A conceptual understanding of Newtons second law as a
vector equation requires students to be able to reason quali-
tatively and quantitatively with vectors in the context of both
forces using vector addition and acceleration using vector
subtraction. In this section we describe two questions we
have asked that require students to draw conclusions about
the magnitudes of various forces exerted on an object based
on information about its motion.
1. Skateboarder question
In this question students were asked to compare the mag-
nitudes of the normal and weight forces for the instant when
a skateboarder shown in Fig. 9 was at the top of a bump.
Because the acceleration is downward, the net force must be
downward, and the weight must be greater than the normal
force.
After modied instruction at New Mexico State, about
30% of 93 students answered this question correctly. About
one-quarter stated that the normal force would be equal to
the weight, and one-third stated that the normal force would
be greater than the weight. More than 90% of the students as
opposed to about 10% in a small traditionally taught class
included a free-body diagram, a subtraction of velocity vec-
tors, or both. Many of the students who drew a free-body
diagram, however, seemed to assume that the net force was
zero.
2. Swinging gymnast question
This question refers to a gymnast who is swinging from
two ropes Fig. 10. The two ropes in this case are parallel.
Students are asked to compare the magnitude of the tension
in the left rope to 250 N that is, half the gymnasts weight
as she passes through the bottom of the swing with a speed
of 5 m/s.
When this question was administered on a midterm exami-
nation after modied instruction at New Mexico State, about
40% of the 76 students taking the exam answered correctly
that the tension in the rope is greater than 250 N. About 20%
of the students answered that the tension would be equal to
250 N, and about 15% that it would be less. Slightly more
than 20% of the students did not answer this question at all.
3. Commentary on vectors in dynamics
On questions that require students to relate the forces ex-
erted on an object to its motion, student performance after
modied instruction remained below our expectations. How-
ever, a noticeable difference is that after modied instruction,
a large fraction of students were using vectors in their at-
tempt to answer these questions. We briey describe errors in
the use of vectors that are common to both of these ques-
tions, and that occur in responses to other similar questions.
As we have mentioned, many students consider only a
change in speed when attempting to nd an objects accel-
eration. In situations in which the direction of the motion is
changing while the speed is constant or not changing at the
instant in question, students often respond that the accelera-
tion is zero. Examples of this type of reasoning in the context
of the gymnast and skateboarder questions are given below:
The tension on left rope is equal to 250
Newtons because at that moment, when the
swing reaches the bottom, the acceleration to-
wards the center of the circle is basically 0.
In the top point of the bump ..., the skate-
boarders normal force is equal to the weight
because there is no acceleration in the
y-direction at that point.
Other students gave incorrect responses in which they
treat mass times acceleration as an additional force. Many
instructors will recognize that this error is common in prob-
lems involving circular motion. For example, many of the
one-third of students who concluded that the normal force on
the skateboarder must be greater than the weight treated ma
as if it were an additional downward force. They reasoned
that this force plus the weight should be equal to the nor-
mal force, and that the weight should therefore be less than
the normal force:
The acceleration is to the inside and if the
sum of all forces is the same, the acceleration
is in the same direction as the weight so the
normal force has to be greater than the
weight.
We have given examination questions that ask students to
demonstrate that the net force acting on an object and the
acceleration of that object are in the same direction. Other
questions that we have asked require students to reason about
the relative magnitudes of forces acting on objects based on
what is known about the motion of these objects. Examples
of these questions are shown in Fig. 11. Even after complet-
ing homework assignments that emphasize the relation be-
tween the directions of net force and acceleration, most stu-
dents cannot answer these questions correctly. Difculties
with nding the direction of acceleration are common. In
addition, many students are unable to reason about the rela-
tion between individual forces and the net force acting on an
object, even in cases where the acceleration of the object is
zero. Most students in our courses do not develop a func-
tional understanding of Newtons second law as a relation-
ship between vectors.
Fig. 9. A question about a skateboarder going over a bump.
Fig. 10. A question about a swinging gymnast.
466 466 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 4, April 2004 Flores, Kanim, and Kautz
V. CONCLUSION
In A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching, Arons sug-
gested that many students would benet from more exer-
cises and drills in graphical handling of vector arithmetic.
18
Consistent with Arons assessment, we have found as did
Nguyen and Meltzer
7
that many students were not able to
add or subtract vectors graphically after traditional instruc-
tion, and could not answer qualitative questions about vector
addition and subtraction. A solid conceptual understanding of
vector operations is not a typical outcome of the traditional
introductory physics course. Without improving overall stu-
dent understanding of these mathematical tools, we cannot
expect that students will correctly apply vectors in mechan-
ics.
Most instructors are aware that students have difculties
with vectors and with their use in the context of Newtons
second law. Our intention with this investigation was to char-
acterize those difculties and thereby lay the foundation for
the improvement of instruction. For many of the questions
that we have asked after traditional instruction, the number
of students who employed vectors in their answers was quite
low. For this reason, most of our investigation has been con-
ducted in modied courses.
In the courses taught by the authors, we have made modi-
cations to the content of the course and to the sequence of
topics that were specically intended to improve student un-
derstanding of vectors in mechanics. Although the degree of
modication and the results have varied from course to
course, none of these modications have been more than
moderately successful. One consistent result has been to in-
crease the fraction of students who attempt to employ vectors
when reasoning about forces and acceleration. We empha-
size, however, that there were still many errors in students
use of vectors and in their responses to qualitative questions
involving vectors despite the modications we introduced.
The persistence of these errors suggests that the difculties
we have described are not trivial. We therefore believe that it
is unlikely that additional time spent on rote practice of vec-
tor operations will substantially improve student perfor-
mance on questions such as those described in this paper. We
conclude that further research into student understanding of
vectors and application of this research to the design of new
curricula is necessary if we intend that more students gain a
functional understanding of vectors in the introductory
course.
We also suspect that the errors made by students in their
reasoning about vectors are affected by the sequence of the
course as well as by specic instructional strategies related to
vector use. As textbooks become available that introduce
forces before kinematics,
16
there will be opportunities to
compare student performance in courses that use a modied
sequence of topics to that in courses beginning with kinemat-
ics.
As a result of this investigation, we have become more
aware of the degree to which application of vectors is a chal-
lenge to many students. As this study progresses, we hope to
learn more about the nature of student difculties with vec-
tors. In addition, we hope to characterize the effects of modi-
cations to instruction in greater detail, and to use this re-
search to develop more effective curricula.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the students who participated in
interviews. John McNabb was very helpful in analyzing stu-
dent responses at Syracuse University. We are also indebted
to our colleagues at the University of Washington, Syracuse
University, and New Mexico State University, who have sup-
ported us by providing access to their students. The authors
gratefully acknowledge the support of the Syracuse Univer-
sity Vision Fund CK, and of the National Science Founda-
tion through the New Mexico Alliance for Graduate Educa-
tion and the Professoriate SF.
a
Electronic mail: sergio@nmsu.edu
b
Electronic mail: skanim@nmsu.edu
c
Current address: Technical University Hamburg-Harburg, AB 3-04, 21071
Hamburg, Germany; electronic mail: kautz@tu-harburg.de
1
L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, Resource letter PER-1: Physics edu-
cation research, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755767 1999.
2
See, for example, D. E. Trowbridge and L. C. McDermott, Investigation
of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension,
Am. J. Phys. 48, 10201028 1980, and Investigation of student under-
standing of the concept of acceleration in one dimension, 49, 242253
1981.
3
See, for example, I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, Common-sense concepts
about motion, Am. J. Phys. 53, 10561065 1985; J. Clement, Stu-
dents preconceptions in introductory mechanics, ibid. 50, 6671 1982;
L. Viennot, Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics, Eur. J. Sci.
Educ. 1, 205221 1979.
4
F. Reif and S. Allen, Cognition for interpreting scientic concepts: A
study of acceleration, Cogn. Instruction 9, 144 1992.
5
P. Shaffer, The use of research as a guide for instruction in physics,
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Physics, University of Washington,
1993.
6
R. Knight, The vector knowledge of beginning physics students, Phys.
Teach. 33, 7478 1995.
7
N. Nguyen and D. Meltzer, Initial understanding of vector concepts
among students in introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 71, 630
638 2003.
8
S. Kanim, An investigation of student difculties in quantitative and
qualitative problem solving: Examples from electric circuits and electro-
statics, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Physics, University of Wash-
ington, 1999.
9
D. Hestenes and M. Wells, A Mechanics Baseline Test, Phys. Teach. 30,
159166 1992.
10
D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory,
Phys. Teach. 30, 141158 1992.
11
See http://www.webassign.net/.
12
L. McDermott, P. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group at the Univer-
Fig. 11. Examples of questions requiring reasoning about the relationship
between net force and acceleration: a a suitcase sliding down a ramp; b
a fallen skier slowing down; c a toboggan pulled at constant speed; and d
a climber on a rock face.
467 467 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 4, April 2004 Flores, Kanim, and Kautz
sity of Washington, Tutorials in Introductory Physics PrenticeHall, Up-
per Saddle River, NJ, 2002.
13
References that report on the effectiveness of tutorials for improving stu-
dent understanding of specic physics topics are included in Ref. 1.
14
See, for example, T. OBrien Pride, S. Vokos, and L. McDermott, The
challenge of matching learning assessments to teaching goals: An example
from the work-energy and impulse-momentum theorems, Am. J. Phys.
66, 147156 1998; P. Shaffer and L. McDermott, Research as a guide
for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. II.
Design of an instructional strategy, ibid. 60, 10031013 1992.
15
E. Mazur, Peer Instruction PrenticeHall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
16
A. Giambattista, B. Richardson, and R. Richardson, College Physics
McGrawHill, New York, 2004.
17
L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and M. D. Somers, Research as a guide
for teaching introductory mechanics: An illustration in the context of the
Atwoods machine, Am. J. Phys. 62, 4655 1994.
18
A. B. Arons, A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching Wiley, New York,
1990, p. 91.
468 468 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 4, April 2004 Flores, Kanim, and Kautz