PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH SECTION

The Physics Education Research Section PERS publishes articles describing important results from the
field of physics education research. Manuscripts should be submitted using the web-based system that can
be accessed via the American Journal of Physics home page, http://ajp.dickinson.edu, and will be
forwarded to the PERS editor for consideration.

Student understanding of the angular momentum of classical particles

Hunter G. Closea) and Paula R. L. Heronb)
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-1560
(Received 18 November 2010; accepted 27 March 2011)
Students in introductory calculus-based physics were asked about the angular momentum of a
particle traveling in a straight line. The tendency to state that the angular momentum is identically
zero was widespread, and few students applied l ¼ r  p correctly. The common errors reflect a
tendency to conflate angular momentum with angular velocity or with linear momentum. Many
students assume that linear and angular momentum are jointly conserved, an error that appears to be
linked to their thinking about energy. A tutorial was developed to help students recognize that linear
momentum and angular momentum are separately conserved. The results suggest that helping
students understand why angular momentum is attributed to a particle moving in a straight line may
be more effective in helping them to apply the concept than instructing them only on its correct use.
In addition to providing insights into student learning of the concept of angular momentum, we
illustrate how students’ own ideas can be the basis for more effective instruction. VC 2011 American
Association of Physics Teachers.
[DOI: 10.1119/1.3579141]

I. INTRODUCTION angular momentum of straight-line motion.4 Reference 5

As part of an ongoing effort to improve student under-
standing of conservation principles,1 we investigated student
ability to analyze collisions between particles and rigid
bodies.2 A correct analysis requires that students grasp an
abstract concept: the angular momentum of a particle mov-
ing with constant velocity. In this article we present results
from written questions and interviews in which we posed
problems that require students to apply this concept. Our
main goal is to contribute to the research base that serves as
a resource for instructors, textbook authors, and curriculum
developers. We also describe our experience in designing
instructional materials to illustrate how effectively instruc-
tional strategies can incorporate the spontaneous reasoning
used by individual students.
Most of the investigation took place in the introductory
calculus-based physics course at the University of Washing-
ton (UW). The topics to be covered, which are chosen by a
committee of faculty, include angular momentum for all sec-
tions of this course. This course is the setting in which the
Physics Education Group has been developing Tutorials in
Introductory Physics.3 The tutorials are designed to be used
in small group sessions in which tutorial instructors (usually
graduate teaching assistants) teach by questioning rather
than by telling. At the time this study began, angular mo-
mentum was not addressed in the tutorials.
II. BACKGROUND
Previous articles on instruction on angular momentum have
acknowledged the difficulty that students experience with the
describes an elaborate laboratory activity in which students
analyzed a collision on an air table involving simultaneous
linear momentum and angular momentum conservation. A
non-spinning puck struck a target object of uneven mass dis-
tribution and caused it to rotate and translate across the table.
The analysis of angular momentum involved a consideration
of both forms6 of angular momentum: that due to overt spin-
ning and that due to straight-line motion. Students used meas-
urements to calculate the percent change in linear momentum,
angular momentum, and kinetic energy as a result of the colli-
sion. Typical results demonstrated that the linear momentum
and angular momentum are preserved to a good approxima-
tion in such a collision, but the kinetic energy is not. Students
performed the angular momentum analysis using two different
reference points, and found a very small change in the total
angular momentum. The authors’ goal in the design of the ac-
tivity included helping students become comfortable with the
idea of angular momentum of straight-line motion and under-
standing the source of the angular momentum of the new rota-
tional motion. The learning goals included helping students to
understand the reference-point dependence of angular mo-
mentum, and that a collision can be understood by the applica-
tion of the principles of linear momentum conservation and
angular momentum conservation, and not a principle of con-
servation of kinetic energy. The article did not report on the
impact of the activity on student learning.
The primary aim of Ref. 7 was to observe the problem-
solving habits of physics faculty and compare them to those
of introductory students on a difficult angular momentum
conservation problem. In this problem a spinning wheel is
placed onto a level surface with zero initial velocity and

1068 Am. J. Phys. 79 (10), October 2011 http://aapt.org/ajp C 2011 American Association of Physics Teachers
V 1068
eventually comes to a steady state of rolling without slip-
ping. The most direct solution involves the application of
angular momentum conservation to the wheel, while using a
reference point for which there is zero net torque on the
wheel, though there is a net force due to friction. In this prob-
lem it is helpful to recognize not only the point-dependence
of angular momentum vectors, but also the point-dependence
of the principle of angular momentum conservation. That is,
for most reference points the angular momentum of the wheel
is not constant, but for one on the line of action of the friction
force, the angular momentum of the wheel is constant. The
student responses in this study rarely considered any conser-
vation laws at all, let alone angular momentum.
Other related research has focused on student thinking in
other areas of physics that involve the use of a vector cross
product. An investigation of the direction of the magnetic
force on a charged particle focused on the reasons that stu-
dents make sign errors in determining the direction.8 An
investigation of rigid body equilibrium9 found that only
about one third of introductory students (after traditional
instruction and before any tutorial instruction) stated cor-
rectly that, if a clay ball initially stuck to the side of a bal-
anced pegboard were moved vertically downward, the board
would remain balanced. This problem probes the idea that
only the component of r that is perpendicular to F matters
for the torque s in the relation of s ¼ r  F.
In the following we present results from problems intended
to probe student ability to apply the definition of particle angu-
lar momentum. The format is web-based and students choose
their answer from a menu of options, and then type an explana-
tion.10 The problems were given on non-graded pretests prior to
a tutorial on angular momentum. In most course sections, stu-
dents had been assigned textbook11 readings that covered the
vector cross product, the right-hand rule, the definition of parti-
cle angular momentum, and its relation to net torque. In some
sections the topic had also been covered in lecture. Student per-
formance did not depend on the amount of prior instruction,12
and results from all sections have been combined.13
III. THE FREE SMALL BALL PROBLEM
In the free small ball problem, a ball moves with constant
velocity, without spinning, in a weightless, frictionless envi-
ronment (see Fig. 1). Points A and B are on a line parallel to
the ball’s path. Students were asked three questions related
to the instant shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Figure shown to students in a written problem. A small ball moves to
the right with a speed v0 in a weightless, frictionless environment. The ball
does not spin. Fixed locations in space, in the plane of the page, are marked
with X and labeled A and B.
1069 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 10, October 2011
Table I. Results from the free small ball problem (Fig. 1) for three sections
of introductory physics (Ntotal ¼ 340) before tutorial instruction on angular
momentum.
Correct No-spin r-Dom x-Dom p-Dom
Point-dependence 20% 27% 26% 26% (a)
Time-dependence 40% (b)
29% 21% (a)
Direction 29% 19% (c) (c)
14%
Point- and time-dependence 5% 24% 21% 15% (a)
All three questions 4% 19% (c) (c)
4%
(a)
No specific answer to the point-dependence or time-dependence questions
corresponds uniquely to the p-dominant concept.
(b)
The correct answer to the time-dependence question corresponds to both
the correct concept of particle angular momentum and the no-spin concept.
(c)
No specific answer to the direction question corresponds uniquely to the
r-dominant or the x-dominant concepts.
A. Point-dependence
Students were first asked to compare the magnitude of the
ball’s angular momentum in relation to points A and B. At
the given time the position vectors that locate the ball in rela-
tion to the two different points have identical components
perpendicular to the ball’s linear momentum, so the correct
answer is lA ¼ lB. As shown in Table I, about 20% of the stu-
dents chose the correct answer.
However, not all of them gave correct explanations. Some
cited the relation l ¼ mvr sinh and noted that, although r is
greater point for B, sinh is greater for A. They did not justify
the assumption that these quantities are inversely propor-
tional. Other students cited angular momentum conservation.
Although a conservation argument cannot be applied directly,
some students might have recognized that comparing the
angular momentum in relation to two different points at the
same time is equivalent to comparing the angular momentum
of the ball in relation to a single point at two different times
in which case a conservation argument is valid. Their explan-
ations typically did not extend beyond the simple statement
that “angular momentum is conserved.” Not surprisingly, the
answer lA ¼ lB ¼ 0 was common. A typical explanation was
“Since there is no rotation, the angular momentum is zero.”
These explanations tended to focus on the lack of an overt
appearance of rotation of an object about its own center. We
refer to this view of the angular momentum of a particle as
the “no-spin concept.” Other students indicated that the ball’s
angular momentum is greater in relation to the closer of the
two reference points, that is, lA > lB. Some accompanying
explanations implied a failure to distinguish angular velocity
and angular momentum: “Just a guess, probably because it
[the ball] is closer to point A and therefore it would seem
faster… Like looking outside a moving car really close… It
seems to be moving really fast.” We refer to this idea as the
“x-dominant concept” of angular momentum.
Most of the other students indicated that the ball’s angular
momentum is greater in relation to the more distant reference
point, that is, lB > lA, often referring explicitly to the differ-
ent distances from the ball to the two points. We refer to this
idea as the “r-dominant concept” of angular momentum.
B. Time-dependence
Students were asked how lA and lB are changing at the
instant shown in Fig. 1. In both cases they could note that
H. G. Close and P. R. L. Heron 1069
neither the component of r perpendicular to the ball’s linear
momentum nor the linear momentum itself is changing and
conclude that lA and lB are both constant. About 40% of the
students chose the correct answer (see Table I).14 This an-
swer is compatible with both the correct view and with the
no-spin concept of angular momentum, an idea that many
students expressed in response to one of the other two ques-
tions. Other students chose the answer consistent with the
x-dominant concept of angular momentum, that is, “lA is
decreasing, lB is increasing,” as illustrated by “as the ball
moves along the path, the change in the angle increases,
increasing the angular velocity and thus increasing the angu-
lar momentum.” A similar number of students chose the an-
swer consistent with the r-dominant concept, that is, “lA is
increasing, lB is decreasing,” as illustrated by the explana-
tion: “Angular momentum ¼ mvd, and if the distance
between the ball and point B is decreasing so must angular
momentum.”
C. The direction
Students were also asked to describe the direction of the
ball’s angular momentum in relation to point B. They could
use the right-hand rule to find that it is directed into the page.
They were given 11 options to choose from: eight directions
spaced evenly in the plane of the page as well as into the
page, out of the page, and lB ¼ 0.
About 29% of the students chose a direction perpendicular
to the plane containing r and p (see Table I). We have seen
students use their left hand while answering this question, an
error we consider mild, so we grouped the answers “into the
page” and “out of the page” together. The most common
incorrect response was that the angular momentum points to
the right, an answer that seems to conflate angular and linear
momentum. The following explanation was typical: “Points
to the right. The momentum will be carried in the same
direction as the velocity vector.” This answer is an example
of the “p-dominant concept” of angular momentum.
It is not surprising that many students assumed that a
non-spinning object moving in a straight line has no angular
momentum. Even those who ascribed some sort of angular
quality to the motion of the ball or puck rarely applied the def-
inition l ¼ r  p correctly. If the results of both the point-de-
pendence and time-dependence questions are considered
together, we find that 5% of the students gave correct answers
to both, and about 15%–25% gave a pair of answers consistent
with each of the r-dominant, x-dominant, and the no-spin
concepts of angular momentum (see Table I). No other pair of
answers occurred with any significant frequency. For the
direction question it is difficult to determine a priori how
most of the possible answers correspond to the r-dominant
and x-dominant concepts. Therefore we do not expect to see
these two categories emerge from an analysis of all three
questions taken together. Instead we find a fairly uniform dis-
tribution over nearly all possible combinations with only the
no-spin response occurring with any significant frequency.
Because student responses to the set of three questions
appear mostly to match our simple models of different con-
cepts of angular momentum (x-, r-, and p-dominant, and
no-spin), we might interpret the data in terms of students’
consistent use of coherent alternative models to arrive at
their answers. We do not make such a claim, primarily
because we do not have evidence that individual students
employed any specific alternative concept of angular mo-
1070 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 10, October 2011
mentum for longer than the duration of the pretest, which
lasted about 10 min. Several features of students’ explana-
tions suggested extemporaneity: their tentative nature, their
focus on a single visual feature of the scenario, or their basis
on mere algebra. Students whose responses typified r-domi-
nant reasoning might have only been making rote (and incor-
rect) use of a formula that is not intuitive. In contrast, some
of the students who expressed x-dominant reasoning seemed
to be visualizing the ball’s motion from the point of view of
an observer located at the reference point, and trying to con-
nect their intuition with formal concepts. The responses we
have categorized as p-dominant might reflect a sensible way
to try to integrate a new concept with one that is more famil-
iar. We suggest that students, trying to make sense of these
questions about the probably unfamiliar abstraction of angu-
lar momentum, grasped for the nearest conceptual foothold
from which to generate answers about this new quantity in a
new scenario.
Although we constructed static models of student
responses to these questions about angular momentum, there
is a range of possibilities that may characterize the dynamics
of student thinking. Also, the characteristic student errors ex-
hibit a conceptual minimalism that is appropriate. That is,
they may reflect a healthy reluctance to embrace a new con-
cept for which there is no evidence or that does not yet have
an apparent theoretical function.
IV. INITIAL TUTORIAL EXERCISES
The results we have discussed led to the development of
several exercises that were included in an earlier version of
the tutorial. Conservation of Angular Momentum.15 We refer
to this version here as “initial,” although it was not the first
that was designed.
Our emphasis was on understanding and applying the defi-
nition l ¼ r  p for an object moving with constant velocity.
In a series of different contexts, students were guided to
draw a vector representing the linear momentum of the
object, position vectors for the object from multiple refer-
ence points, and components of these position vectors paral-
lel and perpendicular to the linear momentum vector. They
derived a reduced form of the definition of angular momen-
tum in which the parallel component of the position vector is
eliminated, that is, l ¼ r\p. They concluded that the angular
momentum of a point-like object traveling at constant veloc-
ity is generally non-zero, constant in time, and its magnitude
and direction depend on the location of the reference point.
Because we assumed that students would find it difficult to
believe that angular momentum is usually non-zero, we
included a kinesthetic activity in which one student moves in
a straight line and passes near another stationary student,
who must turn his or her head to track the moving student.
The purpose was to help students appreciate why it is not
unreasonable to think of a particle’s angular momentum as
non-zero. We regard this activity as pedagogically distinct
from an attempt (as in a later version of the tutorial) to con-
vince students that it is necessary (for the sake of conserva-
tion) to define the angular momentum as generally non-zero.
V. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INITIAL
TUTORIAL EXERCISES
To assess the effectiveness of the initial set of exercises
we included problems on examinations in course sections in
H. G. Close and P. R. L. Heron 1070
which students had completed the tutorial. In the following
we compare the results with those obtained on the same
questions asked as pretests before tutorial instruction on
angular momentum. No student was asked the same question
twice. Although some data were obtained on non-graded pre-
tests and others on graded examinations, our experience in
other topic areas suggests that the outcome is not strongly
affected by whether the test was graded or not.16 Therefore any
differences that are observed are best attributed to the tutorial.
A. Representative post-test: variation of the free small
ball problem
One post-test question was a version of the free small ball
problem in which three points were identified. Points A and
B are the same as in the original version; point C has the
same x-coordinate as point B, but is on the opposite side of
the ball’s path (see Fig. 1). Students were asked the point-de-
pendence, time-dependence, and direction questions. The
first two questions referred only to points A and B. The
results are summarized in Table II.
The success rate on the point-dependence question was
higher in the class in which the initial tutorial was used (40%)
than in the classes that did not have tutorial instruction (20%).
The response that the angular momentum of the ball in relation
to both points is zero was given by only 2% of the students
who had worked through the tutorial. However, the combined
percentage of responses consistent with r-dominant and x-
dominant reasoning was almost the same in both groups.
The performance was almost the same for both groups on
the time-dependence question. When this question was given
before tutorial instruction, some students who gave the cor-
rect answer stated that the ball has no angular momentum in
response to the point-dependence question. Therefore reduc-
tion of this type of answer to the latter question would not
necessarily be accompanied by an increase in correct
answers to the time-dependence question.
The greatest difference between student performances in
the two groups was on the direction question. Among students
who had worked through the tutorial, 86% chose a direction
perpendicular to the page, whereas 29% of the students who
had not worked through the tutorial chose one of these
directions.
When the point- and time-dependence questions are con-
sidered together, the percentage of students who answer both
Table II. Results from the free small ball problem (Fig. 1) at different stages
of instruction.
Before Initial
tutorial tutorial
3 sections 1 section
N ¼ 340 N ¼ 97
Point-dependence correct 20% 40%
Time-dependence correct 40% 38%
Direction correct 29% 86%
Point- and time-dependence 5% 30%
Both correct
Consistent with l : 0 24% 2%
r-Dominant 21% 26%
x-Dominant 15% 15%
Total of above categories 65% 71%
All three questions correct 4% 27%
1071 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 10, October 2011
correctly is improved from 5% (no tutorial) to 30% (after ini-
tial tutorial). An improvement of 4%–27% is seen in the per-
centage of students who answer all three questions correctly.
B. Representative post-test: the ball and rod problem
The results from the free small ball post-test indicate that
the tutorial helped strengthen students’ ability to apply the
relation l ¼ r  p in an abstract context. Although such a skill
is important, our real goal was to help students apply the
principle of angular momentum conservation to the analysis
of collisions. Therefore we also administered a more com-
plex post-test.
In the problem depicted in Fig. 2 a ball collides with a rod
in two separate experiments conducted in a weightless, fric-
tionless environment. In both experiments the ball moves
with constant speed toward the rod, without spinning. The
center of the rod is initially at a fixed point in space labeled
A. In experiment 1 the ball strikes the rod at its center; in
experiment 2 the ball strikes the rod near its end. After each
collision the ball and rod stick together.
1. Linear momentum vectors
Students were asked to draw arrows to represent the magni-
tude and direction of the total linear momentum of the ball-
rod system before and after the collision in each experiment,
and to explain their reasoning briefly. Their answer could note
that the rod is initially at rest in both experiments and that the
ball moves with the same initial velocity. Therefore in both
experiments the initial vectors are directed to the right and
have the same length. The net force on each system is zero so
the initial and final linear momentum vectors are the same.
As shown in Table III, about 40% of the students correctly
indicated that the vectors are the same. About 47% indicated
that the linear momentum in experiment 2 is smaller after
the collision, as if the onset of rotational motion were accom-
panied by a reduction in linear motion. When this question
was given in a class prior to tutorial instruction, the results
were similar.
2. Angular momentum vectors
We also asked students to indicate the direction but not
the magnitude of the total angular momentum of the ball-rod
system in relation to point A before and after the collision in
Revised
tutorial
3 sections
N ¼ 478
41%
36%
76%
33%
Fig. 2. Figure shown to students in a written problem. A ball collides with a
rod in two separate experiments (1 and 2) in a weightless, frictionless envi-
0%
ronment. The ball and rod are not in contact with any other objects. In both
32% experiments the ball moves with the same initial speed v0 toward the rod and
19% sticks to it. In experiment 1 the ball hits the rod at its center; in experiment 2
84% the ball hits the rod near its end. Before the ball hits the rod, the center of
32% the rod is at point A, which is fixed in space, that is, if the rod begins to
move, its center may leave point A.
H. G. Close and P. R. L. Heron 1071
Table III. Results from the linear momentum (p) portion of the ball and rod momentum as being conserved jointly, rather than sepa-
problem (Fig. 2). Not all categories of response are included. rately. Many students explicitly expressed the idea that one
form of momentum can be converted to another, as in the
Before Initial Revised
following examples:
tutorial tutorial tutorial

1 section 1 section 5 sections

N ¼ 136 N ¼ 156
All four vectors equal (correct) 35% 40%
All responses in which p 36% 47%
decreases in experiment 2
both experiments and to explain their reasoning briefly. They
could use the right-hand rule to find that the initial angular
momentum of the ball-rod system in relation to point A is
zero in experiment 1 and out of the page in experiment 2.
The net torque on each system is zero, so the initial and final
angular momentum vectors are the same. Students were
reminded to use the symbols  and  to represent “into the
page” and “out of the page,” respectively. We also accepted
the descriptions “clockwise” and “counter-clockwise,”
whether written explicitly or drawn as a curved arrow in the
plane of the page.
As shown in Table IV, very few students drew a complete
set of correct vectors. About 48% indicated that the angular
momentum in experiment 2 is zero before the collision and
non-zero afterward. In the context of a view of linear mo-
mentum and angular momentum as jointly, rather than sepa-
rately, conserved, this answer is consistent with the
responses that attributed a greater linear momentum to the
system in experiment 2 before the collision than afterward.
3. Final center-of-mass speeds
Students were asked to compare the final center-of-mass
speeds of the ball-rod system in the two experiments. They
could answer by noting that both systems have the same final
linear momentum and the same mass and therefore their cen-
ter-of-mass speeds (being the magnitude of linear momen-
tum per unit mass) must be the same. About 55% of the
students stated that the system that does not rotate has a
greater final center-of-mass speed. These responses are con-
sistent with the idea that some linear momentum in experi-
ment 2 is converted to angular momentum.
C. Commentary
The responses to the ball and rod post-test reveal a
widespread tendency to treat linear momentum and angular
Table IV. Results from the angular momentum portion of the ball and rod
problem (Fig. 2). Not all response categories are included.
Before Initial
tutorial tutorial
1 section 1 section
N ¼ 136 N ¼ 156
linitial and lfinal are both zero in 16% 16%
experiment 1 and both out of the
page in experiment 2 (correct)
All responses in which lfinal 48% 53%
> linitial in experiment 2
“In experiment 2, the ball strikes away from
N ¼ 750
center. Since L 5 r 3 p, and r is nonzero, some
67%
linear momentum is converted to angular
24%
momentum.”
“Because there are no external forces, momentum
is conserved, but some goes into angular
momentum.”
When thinking about momentum, students tend to use
some procedures and language that would be more appropri-
ate to use when thinking about energy. Some students made
this connection explicitly. However, the kind of thinking rep-
resented by the example responses is better described as a
common idea about “motion” or “activity” in general, rather
than about linear momentum or angular momentum, per se.
Students’ explanations for the final center-of-mass speed
question support this interpretation. Many students wrote
incorrect energy conservation equations, in which the initial
kinetic energy of the ball is equated with the final kinetic
energy of the ball-rod system when in reality a significant
fraction of the initial kinetic energy in each experiment is
transformed into thermal energy during the inelastic colli-
sions. We interpret the tendency of students to think in terms
of energy conservation and the tendency to treat linear and
angular momentum as jointly conserved as different forms of
a more basic idea that physical processes happen in a way that
keeps some perceptible, scalar quantity of motion or activity
fixed.1 If energy conservation appears to take a higher status
in student thinking than other conservation laws, we hypothe-
size that the reason for this apparent preference is that there
are some primitive elements of intuitive thinking that resonate
more with some of the features of energy conservation, and
that students sense that these elements are somehow validated
by formal instruction in energy conservation.
We do not claim that energy is a more automatic concept
for students. The literature on student understanding of the
energy concept contains accounts of ways in which common
student thinking about energy differs from the scientific con-
cept. For instance, students sometimes think that energy is
categorically not transformed, and that each form of energy
is not manifested by or indicated by characteristic observ-
ables, but rather exhausted by bringing about those observ-
ables, as though the observables relate more directly to the
rate of energy reduction than to the energy itself that is pres-
ent.17 If we extend this model of student thinking to the ball
and rod problem, we can account for the tendency of the stu-
dents to answer in terms of energy. In this interpretation stu-
dents tend to assume that kinetic energy, being the only
obviously relevant form of energy present in the ball and rod
Revised problem before the collisions, is maintained as the only form
tutorial of energy, and they would therefore tend to avoid inferring
5 sections
that energy is transformed from kinetic energy to thermal
N ¼ 750
energy during the brief impact between the ball and the rod.
49%
Thus, kinetic energy is assumed to be present initially, main-
tained in its original form, and perhaps gradually ex-
hausted.18 This model of student thinking about energy is
34% not contradicted by our observations of the ball and rod con-
text and would present a problem for instruction, regardless
of any issues about angular momentum.

1072 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 10, October 2011 H. G. Close and P. R. L. Heron 1072
 DiSessa19 has reported that students often assume that
“motion” (roughly and intuitively defined) perpetuates in the
short term and gradually dies away in the longer term. Sudden
reductions of motion in a system, from a naı̈ve point of view,
require external interventions, while gradual reductions of
motion do not. This view provides a primitive notion of con-
servation of motion that can explain student responses in the
ball and rod context. During the collision between the ball and
the rod, there is a sudden reduction of the kinetic energy of
the system (a reduction which depends on the impact parame-
ter). Following the intuitive conservation idea, students would
have no reason to suspect that any overall quantity of motion
would be suddenly reduced while the ball and rod interact
only with each other.20 This naı̈ve view leads to an incorrect
answer to the final center-of-mass speed question due to the
fact that energy, unlike linear and angular momentum, is a
quantity of motion but not a quantity of motion only; that is,
there are other forms of energy. Thus, rather than suggest that
students prefer energy conservation (as understood by experts)
over other laws, we suggest that correct understanding of each
of the three conservation laws in mechanics stems from a
more primitive notion of conservation, whose generic charac-
ter can be masked by the labels “energy” and “momentum.”
The idea of joint conservation of linear and angular mo-
mentum can account for the strong context-dependence of
the tendency to treat the angular momentum of a particle
moving in a straight line as identically zero. On the ball and
rod problem given after the tutorial, about half of the stu-
dents indicated that the initial angular momentum is zero in
experiment 2. On the free small ball problem given at the
same stage, only 5% gave the corresponding answer.
To understand this discrepancy we examine the ways in
which the two problems differ. One difference is the presence
of collisions. When we varied the free small ball context to
include collisions between the moving ball and a wide target
object centered on points A and B and compared the results, we
saw a small effect at most. Therefore the presence of collisions
alone is not adequate to explain the difference in performance
between the free small ball and ball and rod problems. We con-
clude that the critical difference is the presence of questions
about both linear and angular momentum. The collision pro-
vides a plausible prima facie mechanism for “transforming”
linear momentum partly (or totally) into angular momentum,
thus eliminating the need to attribute angular momentum to a
particle undergoing uniform linear motion. Attributing angular
momentum to such a particle might cause a conflict for students
who are considered treating the two types of momentum as
jointly conserved. Answering the free small ball problem by the
straightforward application of the relation l ¼ r  p does not
appear to provoke a conflict with any other ideas.
VI. INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS
To understand student thinking in greater depth we conducted
interviews with five students who had recently completed intro-
ductory mechanics. We asked them to answer the same questions
in written form and to talk about their thinking as they did so. In
the following we present some excerpts that influenced the direc-
tion of subsequent research and curriculum development.
A. Student 1
Student 1 (S1) was given the ball and rod problem and
began by drawing a correct set of linear momentum vectors,
1073 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 10, October 2011
but went on to say that the final center-of-mass speed of the
ball-rod system is different in experiments 1 and 2. When he
noticed the inconsistency, he changed his correct momentum
vectors to be consistent with his incorrect answer about the
center-of-mass speeds. The interviewer (I) asked about this
decision:
I: You had an inconsistency there. They didn’t match to-
gether, the way you saw it, and then you chose to fix one,
but not the other one. How did you make that choice?
S1: I like to think in terms of energies. And because I looked
at the energies, the energy going in, and the momentum
going in, I guess, and since I just keep going back and
saying it has less linear velocity, which is what we said
[about the final center-of-mass speed], since momentum
is determined by mv since v is smaller after the colli-
sion, it would have to be, yeah, it would be a smaller
momentum than the system before the collision, which
is just a ball moving.
I: And that’s based on the energy argument, and the reason
that that wins, is because you prefer to think about
energy?
S1: Yeah, I do. Momentum seems abstract to me. I mean, it
works. I’ve seen it. Momentum is conserved, but energy
is a tangible… It does work, and momentum is just this
quantity that we can create and you can find with math
and it’s conserved. Energy makes sense, something so
high has this much energy. You can see it transferred. I
just think better that way.
I: You feel like you know more what it is? Is that… I don’t
want to put words in your mouth…
S1: No, I know…yeah, I think it’s, yeah, I do, I guess I do
understand a little bit better what, yeah, what it is. It’s
something that can very easily do work, or takes work to
do other, to put energy into potential energy, and mo-
mentum is just kind of this “you take mass, you multiply
it by velocity, and it has a momentum.” It’s a definition.
I: So it’s kind of mathematical?
S1: Yeah, but that’s not really my problem with it, it’s not
hard math.
I: Oh right, not that the operation is hard, but…
S1: But just that it’s not – it’s almost like – to me it seems
like an easy way of defining energy conservation: mo-
mentum conservation. You just multiply this by this,
and look afterward, it’s going to be conserved. And
that’s kind of the, oh what’s the word I’m looking for,
it’s kind of because of energy conservation. So I like to
just go right to the energy conservation, so I can see
what’s happening.
In this excerpt, S1 used ideas about energy to overrule a
correct result he had found using momentum conservation.
He seemed to expect that the energy and momentum
approaches should yield the same results, but was more con-
fident about the former approach, even implying that it is the
underlying reason for momentum conservation.
At the suggestion of the interviewer, the student applied
momentum conservation (correctly) and then energy conser-
vation (incorrectly) to find the final speed of the ball-rod sys-
tem in experiment 1. He did not realize that the mechanical
energy of the system is not constant in this case. When he
saw that the two approaches did not give the same result, he
was puzzled. He searched in vain for a calculation error for
some time.
H. G. Close and P. R. L. Heron 1073
 Later in the interview, the student was given the free small
ball problem. He correctly determined the direction of the angu-
lar momentum of the ball in relation to two different points:
S1: This one points into the page, this one points out of the
page. And I define that by the right-hand rule.
I: OK. How did you do that?
S1: I pictured them as, this is stupid, but I pictured them as
disks in my mind. As the ball hits them, that’s the direc-
tion they would spin had that been perfect, like I flicked
it almost.
I: OK. Why did you say that was stupid?
S1: It’s not mathematical. It’s just in my own brain.
In this excerpt, S1 imagined stationary disks centered on
the reference points in question and pictured collisions
between the ball and the disks. Rather than using a formula
he had been taught, he used these thought experiments to
find the direction of the ball’s angular momentum.
B. Student 2
In a later interview based on the same problem, student 2
(S2) concluded that the speed of the center of mass of the
ball-rod system must be less in experiment 2 than in experi-
ment 1. The interviewer then asked S2 to imagine a hypo-
thetical set of photos that would show that the two systems
would move at the same speed.
S2: That would be hard for me to figure out in my head
because it seems like you’re not having a conservation
type of situation. Seems like this one has more energy
going into it than this one.
I: How’s that?
S2: Because that’s moving in more dimensions, therefore
more is going on.
I: More is going on, OK. You mentioned energy. Does it
violate momentum conservation?
S2: Yes, I think it would because what I’ve been saying
before is that I think angular momentum plus the transla-
tional momentum would have to equal some sort of
constant.
I: What’s that based on?
S2: What’s that based on? Empirical knowledge. I don’t
know. Just what I’ve seen in the real world.
We did not have such a set of the photographs at the time.
Therefore the interviewer attempted to simulate the experience
of looking at real photographs by asking the student to imagine
the following scenario occurring during a tutorial session:
I: And then the tutorial goes, “ask a tutorial instructor to
provide you with the photographs so that you can
(etc.).” So, you know, you sit down, and you lean over a
sheet with some photographs on it, and the photographs
show them moving at the same forward rate. What
would you do? How would you make sense of that?
S2: If I saw that, I would say, Well, I have to change my
opinion about the world. Thank you for bestowing this
wonderful knowledge, that’s why I’m here.
I: OK.
S2: And I learned something.
I: And what would that be?
S2: That angular momentum and translational momentum
are separate things completely, and I have to treat them
as such.
1074 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 10, October 2011
I: OK. What about energy? Isn’t there still the energy
factor?
S2: Yeah, I wouldn’t… I really don’t know how to figure
that out because [long pause]. I mean, like I said, it
seems like more is going on, therefore more energy is
being used, or something, rather than just translational
motion. And so it couldn’t equal… like, I wouldn’t
believe your pictures. They were doctored.
I: OK. Good to know.
Thus, with little guidance, S2 concluded that linear mo-
mentum and angular momentum are “separate things.” How-
ever, when the interviewer tested his confidence by referring
back to energy, the student abandoned (or at least cast signif-
icant doubt on) his conclusion that linear and angular mo-
mentum are separately conserved.
C. Additional ideas
The complete set of interviews revealed that students
barely remembered the notion of particle angular momen-
tum. With the possible exception of S1, the students
expressed little understanding of the reason that physicists
might attribute angular momentum to an object that moves
in a straight line without spinning. The incorrect answers of
the interviewed students were similar to those we had
observed on earlier written questions. However, three addi-
tional ideas emerged from the interviews that influenced the
subsequent redesign of the tutorial. Student 1 offered a
potentially useful and non-mathematical strategy for deter-
mining the direction of angular momentum by imagining
“target” disks centered at the reference points. Despite the
fact that S1 described it as “stupid,” we believe this strategy
could be helpful for students.
The interviews reinforced our conclusion that many stu-
dents viewed the concept of a particle angular momentum as
unnecessary because linear and angular momentum could be
jointly conserved. That is, angular momentum need not be
present before an interaction if it is present afterward, as
long as “momentum” can be converted from linear to angular
form. For many this notion was tightly linked to ideas about
energy. The students’ assumption that some sort of quantity
of motion is conserved is potentially useful if it can be lever-
aged for learning about multiple conservation laws operating
in parallel.
The third intriguing idea relates to the reaction of the stu-
dent with whom the fictional photos were discussed. The
interview suggested that photos of collisions might draw a
strong reaction and thus provide a good context in which to
discuss the relation between linear and angular momentum
conservation.
VII. REVISED TUTORIAL
The primary goals of the revised tutorial3 were to motivate
students to understand the separate conservation of linear
momentum and angular momentum; accept that angular mo-
mentum can be attributed to a particle-like object moving
with constant velocity; and understand how to determine the
direction and magnitude of such an angular momentum. We
expected that this sequence would make the notion of parti-
cle angular momentum seem sensible to students, rather than
arbitrary, as many of them found the concept in the initial
version of the tutorial. That is, in the initial version of the
H. G. Close and P. R. L. Heron 1074
tutorial, students were expected implicitly to assume the va-
lidity or appropriateness of the definition by practicing its
application to motion with constant velocity, rather than to
explicitly consider the basis for the definition.
A. Collisions
At the beginning of the revised tutorial students consider a
situation that we believed would strongly elicit the idea of
joint conservation: the ball and rod problem. Students are
first asked to locate the center of mass of the puck-rod sys-
tem in each experiment at some instant before the collision.
Next, they are asked to predict how the final speed of the
center of mass of the puck-rod system in experiment 1 com-
pares to that in experiment 2. After students have made a
prediction, they consider a fictional dialog.
Student 1: The center of mass will move faster in experi-
ment 1, because the momentum is purely linear.
In experiment 2, some of the linear momentum is
converted into angular momentum when the puck
and rod start spinning.
Student 2: Both systems will move at the same speed
because the linear momentum is the same in each
experiment. Linear momentum can’t be turned
into angular momentum—each kind of momen-
tum is conserved separately.
Some students anticipate the conceptual development of
the tutorial by asking, “Then where does the angular momen-
tum come from?” after reading student 2’s statement. Instruc-
tors are expected to affirm the importance of that question
and assure students that they will develop an answer.
The students are then given a handout showing a sequence
of photographs21 (see Fig. 3) taken from videos of the two
collisions, which were performed successively. In the first
Fig. 3. A series of photographs that was shown to students as they worked on the tutorial (Ref. 3), which provided students an opportunity to infer that linear
and angular momentum are conserved separately, rather than jointly.
1075 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 10, October 2011
two frames of each sequence the puck has not yet hit the rod.
Students can readily confirm from the photographs that the
puck has the same initial velocity in each experiment. Like-
wise, they can look at the final frames of each series and see
that the total distance traveled by the center of mass of the
first system is indistinguishable from that of the second and
conclude that the two systems have the same final center-of-
mass speed. The intermediate frames show that the second
puck-rod system has a significant angular speed around its
own center of mass. This section concludes by asking the
students whether linear momentum can be converted into
angular momentum. Students seem to agree that the photo-
graphs show clearly that it is not.
B. Angular momentum of an object moving with
constant velocity
In the next section we introduce the idea that the angular
momentum which is apparent after the collision is also pres-
ent before the collision. To help students view this idea as
sensible, we try to elicit ideas which we expect that they find
fairly intuitive: the general conservation concept that the
“amount of something” at the beginning of a process is the
same as the amount afterward, and varying impact parame-
ters results in varying degrees of subsequent rotational
motion.
We then ask students to think about the angular momen-
tum of a particle in relation to different points by imagining
three collisions varying only in the impact parameter
between a small puck and a large disk. In each collision the
puck moves with the same initial velocity and sticks to
the disk. In the first collision the puck moves directly toward
the center of the disk with zero impact parameter. In the sec-
ond collision the puck moves toward a point on the periphery
of the disk so that the impact parameter is almost maximized.
H. G. Close and P. R. L. Heron 1075
In the third collision the puck moves toward the disk with an
intermediate value of the impact parameter, and on the oppo-
site side from that in the side collision. Thus, after the first
collision, the combined puck-disk system does not rotate; in
the second, it rotates with the greatest angular speed; in the
third, it rotates with a lesser angular speed and in the oppo-
site direction from that in the second collision.
Students are encouraged to recognize the cognitive tension
between the ideas that the rotational outcomes of the colli-
sions are different while the initial motion of the puck is sim-
ilar in each collision. We do not challenge students to invent
the definition l ¼ r  p to resolve the tension; instead, we aim
to help the students appreciate that the definition is a solution
to a problem, namely, how to account for different final rota-
tional motions despite apparently identical initial motions of
the puck, rather than as an arbitrary or meaningless equation.
The tutorial explains that they can account for the rotational
motion of the system in a way that is consistent with angular
momentum conservation if they make the following assump-
tions: The puck has angular momentum before the collision,
and the manner in which the system spins after the collision
can be used as an indicator of both the magnitude and direc-
tion of the angular momentum of the puck before the
collision.
The tutorial then guides students in the standard language
of angular momentum by stating that the phrase “the angular
momentum of the puck in relation to point A is different
from the angular momentum of the puck in relation to point
B” is a way of saying that the puck-disk system would rotate
differently if the disk were placed initially at A or B. Stu-
dents use these assumptions to compare the direction and
magnitude of the angular momentum of the puck in relation
to different points. Most students do not have trouble with
this exercise.
After students become comfortable with the basic idea,
the tutorial introduces a definition for the magnitude of angu-
lar momentum, l ¼ r\p, where p is the magnitude of the
object’s linear momentum, and r\ is the shortest distance
from the reference point to the object’s straight-line path.
Students draw r\ for each point on the diagrams they have
considered. Finally, students are asked to consider whether
an object’s angular momentum changes or remains constant
as the object approaches a reference point. Instructors en-
courage students to answer in two ways—using the definition
of angular momentum and by reflecting on the motivation
for “inventing” the definition: the need for angular momen-
tum conservation.
VIII. ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
REVISED TUTORIAL
To assess its effectiveness, we gave students who had
worked through the revised tutorial either the ball and rod
problem or the free small ball problem. In the following we
compare the results to those from students who had worked
through the initial version of the tutorial, or who had not yet
had tutorial instruction on this topic.22
A. The ball and rod problem
As shown in Table III, students who had worked through
the revised tutorial demonstrated greater ability to draw cor-
rect linear momentum vectors than students who had partici-
pated in the initial version (67% compared to 40%). Only
1076 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 10, October 2011
about 24% of the students indicated that the linear momen-
tum of the system in experiment 2 decreases.
Student performance on the question about angular mo-
mentum vectors was also better after the revised version of
the tutorial, 49% compared to 16% (see Table IV). The frac-
tion who indicated that the initial angular momentum of the
system in experiment 2 is zero decreased from 53% to 34%.
Thus, even though particle angular momentum had been
clearly presented in the initial version of the tutorial, more
students treated the concept correctly after the revised ver-
sion, in which the purpose of the concept played a more
prominent role.
Students who had worked through the revised tutorial
were also more likely to recognize that the final center-of-
mass speed is the same for both experiments (70% compared
to 40%).
It is expected that student performance will improve on a
question when instruction is modified to match the exam
question more closely, as in this case. It is not necessarily
expected that the question will become trivial, as Tables III
and IV demonstrate, especially when students are learning
the abstract theory that is introduced to explain a counter-in-
tuitive result. In fact, though the ball and rod problem is sim-
ilar to a situation discussed in the tutorial, about 25% of the
students still stated that the system moves with a greater cen-
ter-of-mass speed in experiment 1 than in experiment 2.
B. The free small ball problem
As shown in Table II, the results on the three parts of the
free small ball problem are similar for both versions of the
tutorial. Although the revised version gradually shifts from
the analysis of actual collisions to the abstract definition of
particle angular momentum, it is slightly longer than the ini-
tial version and many students do not finish the final sections
during the 50-min period. Although they are urged to com-
plete each tutorial in their own time before attempting the
accompanying homework, many do not. We believe that stu-
dents who participated in the revised tutorial spent, on aver-
age, less time on the application of the definition of angular
momentum than students who participated in the initial tuto-
rial, in which this application was placed closer to the begin-
ning. Their performance does not appear to have been
affected. The fact that students were able to improve their
performance on questions involving collisions while main-
taining their performance on questions without collisions
suggests that students are learning more about angular mo-
mentum with the revised tutorial than with the initial
version.
IX. CONCLUSION
We have described common errors that students make in
answering questions about the angular momentum of a
point-like object moving with constant velocity. The tend-
ency to assume that this quantity is identically zero was
widespread. We note that if students have not considered
evidence or arguments that angular momentum should be
attributed to an object moving with constant velocity, then it
is appropriate for them to refrain from adding angular mo-
mentum to the descriptions of motion of the object. Thus,
although treating particle angular momentum as identically
zero is incorrect, we viewed it as a valuable pattern of think-
ing. We found a link between this idea and the assumption
H. G. Close and P. R. L. Heron 1076

that linear momentum and angular momentum are jointly,
rather than separately, conserved. The revised tutorial leads
students to think about the evidence that linear momentum
and angular momentum are separately conserved, as well as
some consequences of this conclusion. The effectiveness of
this tutorial compared to an initial version suggests that stu-
dents may be more likely to treat the concept of particle
angular momentum correctly if they have some understand-
ing of its role.
However, even after targeted instruction, many students
do not understand angular momentum conservation in the
context of an object moving with constant velocity. The evi-
dence that student ideas about angular momentum conserva-
tion are linked to their ideas about other conserved quantities
such as linear momentum and energy suggests that instruc-
tion may be more effective if each conservation principle is
taught with awareness of the issues students face when learn-
ing the other principles as well. In particular, we believe that
special attention should be paid to the tendency of students
to treat energy as a more intuitive concept. Our experience
supports a unified approach to teaching conservation princi-
ples, with attention paid to the reasons that three distinct
quantities are necessary.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions to
this work made by many other members of the Physics Edu-
cation group, past and present. Special thanks are due to Pris-
cilla Laws and Bob Teese for providing the video of the
collisions used in the tutorial. The authors would also like to
thank all of the instructors in whose courses questions were
administered and tutorials tested. The research and curricu-
lum development described were supported by the National
Science Foundation through Grants Nos. DUE 9727648 and
DUE 0088840.
a)
Electronic mail: hgclose@txstate.edu; Present address: Department of
Physics, Texas State University – San Marcos, San Marcos, TX 78666.
b)
Electronic mail address: pheron@uw.edu
1 (1993).
H. G. Close and P. R. L. Heron, “Research as a guide to improving instruc-
tion: An example from momentum conservation,” Am. J. Phys. 78(9),
961–969 (2010), and B. A. Lindsey, P. S. Shaffer, and P. R. L. Heron,
“Student ability to apply the concepts of work and energy to extended sys-
tems,” ibid. 77(11), 999–1009 (2009).
2 that they emphasize the process of moving after the collision (though they
H. G. Close, “Improving instruction in mechanics through identification
and elicitation of pivotal cases in student reasoning,” Ph.D. thesis disserta-
tion, Department of Physics, University of Washington, 2005.
3 netic to thermal.
L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group at the
University of Washington, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002). The most recent version of the tuto-
rial materials described in this article can be found in L. C. McDermott, P.
S. Shaffer, and The Physics Education Group at the University of Wash-
ington, Tutorials in Introductory Physics, updated preliminary 2nd ed.
(Pearson Learning Solutions, New York, 2010).
4 because the change in kinetic energy as a result of the collision is frame-
See J. N. Palmieri and K. Strauch, “An experiment on angular momentum
for the introductory laboratory,” Am. J. Phys. 31, 91–95 (1963), and J. C.
Williamson, R. O. Torres-Isea, and C. A. Kletzing, “Analyzing linear and
angular momentum conservation in digital videos of puck collisions,” ibid.
68(9), 841–847 (2000).
5 ways of reasoning in elementary kinematics,” Eur. J. Phys. 1, 73–80 (1980).
See Williamson et al. in Ref. 3.
6 21
There is ultimately only one form, not two, of angular momentum in clas-
sical mechanics; “spinning angular momentum” and “straight-line motion
angular momentum” are both derived from the general definition of the
angular momentum of a particle.
7 placement in the same time before the collision, thus confirming that the
C. Singh, “When physical intuition fails,” Am. J. Phys. 70(11), 1103–1109
(2002).
1077 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 10, October 2011
8
T. M. Scaife and A. F. Heckler, “Student understanding of the direction of
the magnetic force on a charged particle,” Am. J. Phys. 78(8), 869–876
(2010).
9
L. G. Ortiz, P. R. L. Heron, and P. S. Shaffer, “Student understanding of
static equilibrium: Predicting and accounting for balancing,” Am. J. Phys.
73(6), 545–553 (2005).
10
Students are given 15 min to complete the pretest, which they can begin at
any time during a period of at least 48 h. They are given credit for complet-
ing the pretest whether or not their answers are correct. They are free to con-
sult each other, their textbook, or the internet while they take the pretest. A
student response to each question consists of a choice from a pull-down
menu and a brief free-form explanation. The choices for the pull-down
menus are intended to exhaust all reasonable possibilities that we have
observed in student responses. Statistics from the pull-down menu choices
are computed, whereas statistics on the explanations themselves are not; the
explanations are used to guide our interpretation of students’ selections of
various menu choices. For written exam questions, questions were posed to
the students in the same manner: a fairly closed question with limited choices
followed by an open-ended explanation. Constructing exam questions in this
form leads to very few student responses with ambiguous choices.
11
See, for example, R. D. Knight, Physics for Scientists and Engineers: A
Strategic Approach with Modern Physics (Pearson/Addison-Wesley, San
Francisco, 2004), pp. 396–401.
12
The percentage of students answering correctly in each class was within
5%–10% of the average taken over all sections. No systematic variation
that could be attributed to the prior instruction was observed.
13
As we use the calculated statistics to iteratively improve instruction, we
have tended to take seriously only differences of 15% or more. Although
the data are presented here to 1%, we do not claim that the instruction has
improved overall in any case where the increase in the student success rate
on relevant questions is less than 15%, which for our measurements,
exceeds the usual standards for statistical significance.
14
This 40% figure is similar in magnitude to the result quoted in Ref. 8 that
35% of students answered the “clay ball” problem correctly under similar
instructional circumstances. Both problems may be solved by using the
same property of the vector cross product; namely, if the vectors in the
cross product are unchanged except for the component of one (for exam-
ple, r) that is parallel to the other vector (p or F), the cross product itself
(L or s) remains unchanged. We have not yet studied how the same stu-
dents would respond to both questions.
15
The initial version of the tutorial is unpublished.
16
In this and other cases we have not found systematic variation in results
that could be explained by whether or not a grade was awarded for the cor-
rect answer. See also C. Henderson, “Common concerns about the force
concept inventory,” Phys. Teach. 40(9), 542–547 (2002).
17
S. Kesidou and R. Duit, “Students’ conceptions of the second law of ther-
modynamics—An interpretive study,” J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30(1), 85–106
18
We have observed that, when told that the thermal energy increases as a
result of the collisions and asked which experiment would yield a greater
increase in thermal energy, most students choose experiment 2, even
though it is more in experiment 1. Further probing of their thinking reveals
were told that the environment is frictionless), rather than the collision
itself, as the main mechanism for the transformation of energy from ki-
19
A. A. diSessa, “Toward an epistemology of physics,” Cogn. Instruct.
10(2/3), 105–225 (1993).
20
In the center-of-mass reference frame the kinetic energy in experiment 1
(see Fig. 2) is reduced to zero during the collision. It is conceivable that stu-
dents recognize this result and use it to infer that the kinetic energy in the
original reference frame must be significantly and suddenly reduced,
invariant. We expect very few students to change to alternative reference
frames, because most students treat one reference frame as showing the
“real motion,” which has real causes, while others show only appearances
of motion. See, for example, E. Saltiel and J. L. Malgrange, “‘Spontaneous’
Experiments 1 and 2 were performed with the same puck and rod, of
approximately equal mass, on a low-friction air table. Each series of
images was derived from a video by showing every third frame. Between
frames 1 and 2, the puck can be seen to have moved through the same dis-
puck did have the same initial velocity before the collisions. In frame 10,
H. G. Close and P. R. L. Heron 1077
 the center of mass of the puck-rod combination (approximately halfway in
between the individual centers of mass of the puck and rod) can be seen to
have traveled the same displacement across the air table in the same time
in experiments 1 and 2. Therefore, though the puck-rod combination in
experiment 2 rotated more than 90 during the same time interval, the cen-
ter-of-mass velocity was the same for each puck-disk combination after
the collision.
22
Throughout the course of this study, we provided all students (enrolled in
any of up to 20–25 tutorial sections run concurrently) with a single version
1078 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 79, No. 10, October 2011
of the tutorial and homework exercises, which represented what we
thought was the most beneficial instruction at the time. Under this con-
straint, two groups of students would receive different instructions only if
they took the course during different academic quarters. Thus, students
who worked through the “revised tutorial” took the course in a later aca-
demic quarter than students who worked through the “initial tutorial.” We
did not subject pretest and post-test questions to the same constraint, so
student responses to a given question could, in principle, come from any
academic quarter.
H. G. Close and P. R. L. Heron 1078