Diagnosing Mental Models of Undergraduate Student and Physics Teachers: Study Case in the Momentum and Energy Conservation Principles Using Newton's Cradle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Newton’s Cradle comprises a series of pendulums often used in physics classrooms to demonstrate the principles of conservation of momentum and kinetic energy in elastic collisions. By utilizing open-ended questions and several Newton’s cradle scenarios, this study aims to clarify how the Newton’s cradle can be used for assessing the mental models of the principles of conservation of momentum and energy. Interviews with 18 college students and five physics professors each lasted 30 to 45 minutes. Firstly, they were asked to explain how the Newton’s cradle works. Next, a scenario started with three balls with equal masses where one collides with the other two, they were asked to explain if the possible outcomes for a collision with initial momentum = mv1 + 0 + 0 and the final momentum = (-mv1/3) + (2mv1/3) + (2mv1/3). With a five-ball Newton’s Cradle, students were asked to explain the outcomes when 1) one collides with the other four, 2) two collide with the other three, 3) three collide with the other two, and 4) four collide with the last one. Their drawings and explanations dealing with the Newton’s cradle during the interviews were analyzed for their mental models and categorized into patterns. The results showed that both university students and physics teachers hold misinformed conceptions about conservation of momentum and energy and have unsound mental models in the context of Newton’s Cradle. We also found that they did not recognize that sound and heat or lack of exact alignment of the balls are factors accountable for loss of energy causing the Newton’s Cradle to depart from idealized situation. Based on the interview data, teaching principles of the conservation of momentum and energy through use of Newton’s cradle are deficient and curriculum review is suggested.
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) | 0.000 | 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".