Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and Quebec Elementary Preservice Conceptual Representations about the Movement in Free Falling Objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative research conducted with ninety (90) pre-service teachers of elementary education about their conceptual representations after teaching on free-fall demonstrates that they share many conceptual difficulties despite formal education. For this, we have given them a paper and pencil questionnaire of sixty minutes duration and composed of four questions. Most of the conceptual difficulties identified on analyzing the data were 1. Objectʼs mass influences its fall speed; 2. Gravitational acceleration depends on the force gravitation (weight); 3. During the free fall without friction, the gravitational acceleration at any given time increases as the fall progresses; and 4. During the free fall without friction, the speed at any given time is constant as the fall progresses. The conceptual difficulties identified are relevant for learning, and teaching strategies focused on the conceptual conflict considering the preservice teachersʼ conceptions identified in the present work and the relevant scientific concepts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".