How substance-based ontologies for gravity can be productive: A case study

TL;DR

This paper challenges the view that substance-based ontologies hinder physics learning, showing that such reasoning can be productive and foundational for understanding gravity among elementary teachers.

Contribution

It presents a case study demonstrating how substance-based metaphors can support sophisticated understanding of gravity in teacher education.

Findings

Teachers used substance-based metaphors to explain gravity.

Substance reasoning supported deeper conceptual understanding.

Instruction should leverage, not dismiss, matter-based resources.

Abstract

Many science education researchers have argued that learners' commitment to a substance (matter-based) ontology impedes the learning of scientific concepts that scientists typically conceptualize as processes or interactions, such as such as force, electric current, and heat. By this account, students' tendency to classify these entities as substances or properties of substances leads to robust misconceptions, and instruction should steer novices away from substance-based reasoning. We argue that substance-based reasoning, when it supports learners' sense-making, can form the seeds for sophisticated understanding of these very same physics concepts. We present a case study of a group of elementary school science teachers in our professional development program. The teachers build a sophisticated explanation for why objects of different masses have the same acceleration due to gravity, starting from substance-based metaphors for gravity. We argue that, for conceptual, epistemological, and affective reasons, instructional interventions should focus on tapping these productive matter-based resources rather than attempting to replace them.