Ideas Previas de Los Estudiantes Sobre Fluidos

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]
On: 24 November 2014, At: 17:03

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Science

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20
Students' conceptions of fluids

a
Ugo Besson
a
L.D.S.P. University of Paris ‘Denis Diderot’ , Paris 7, France E-
mail:
b
Via Nicandro 53, 00155 Roma, Italy E-mail:
Published online: 22 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: Ugo Besson (2004) Students' conceptions of fluids, International Journal of
Science Education, 26:14, 1683-1714, DOI: 10.1080/0950069042000243745
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000243745
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 19 NOVEMBER 2004,
VOL. 26, NO. 14, 1683–1714
RESEARCH REPORT
Students’ conceptions of fluids
Ugo Besson, L.D.S.P. University of Paris ‘Denis Diderot’, Paris 7, France;

e-mail: ugobesson@aol.com
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 17:03 24 November 2014
This article describes a research study concerning students’ conceptions and reasonings about fluids and pres-
0000002004
0950-0693
Original
Taylor
2004
Via
UgoBesson
Nicandro
& Article
International
10.1080/0950069042000243745
TSED100767.sgm
andFrancis
(print)/1464-5289
5300155
Ltd
Francis
Journal ofRomaItalyugobesson@aol.com
Ltd (online)
Science Education
sure in static situations. After a preliminary survey involving interviews and observations in class, some written
questions were answered by various groups, totalling 428 Italian and French pupils in upper secondary school,
458 first-year university students in Belgium and 58 teachers-in-training. After briefly illustrating some results
from previous research on this topic, the article introduces the guidelines and objectives of the current research,
describes and discusses its results, highlighting some categories of the more diffuse conceptions and tendencies
of reasoning, and supplies a few suggestions for teaching. It is shown, among other things, that the notion of
hydrostatic pressure is strongly connected to the idea of weight and associated with all the ambiguities that
usually go with the latter. Moreover, a critical point appears to be the difficulty in connecting local actions and
global effects, the need for systemic reasonings that are capable of producing the mechanism with which to estab-
lish a situation of equilibrium.
Introduction
From the end of the 1970s, studies of students’ conceptions increased, together with
a reflection on their cognitive value and their role in learning and instruction. The
terminology used varied with the times, the cultural areas and the interpretative
frameworks: conceptions, ideas, frameworks, representations, reasonings, schemes, and so
on — with prefixes or adjectives like mis-, pre-, prior, alternatives, naïve, natural,
common and spontaneous. This also reveals important differences in the researchers’
views concerning: the degree of coherence attributed to such conceptions, consid-
ered ‘theory-like’ (McCloskey 1983) or ‘knowledge in pieces’ (DiSessa 1983);
whether they are applied in various different situations or strongly remain local and
context dependent; the relation of continuity or discontinuity with scientific knowl-
edge; and their role in learning and instruction. Should a conceptual revolution be
provoked in students, similar to a change of scientific paradigm (Posner et al. 1982),
or a progressive change be favoured, in the continuity between the two types of
knowledge? Are conceptions obstacles to be surpassed or theories to be confronted,
even though limited and incomplete (Driver 1989)? Are they only obstacles or also
in part supports on which new learning can be based (‘anchoring conceptions’;
Clement et al. 1989) or available resources as well, with which to construct new
knowledge (Hammer 2000)?
According to Bachelard:
The adolescent arrives to the physics course having already developed empirical knowledge:
so it is not a matter of acquiring culture but rather of changing it overcoming the obstacles
generated in daily life. (1938: 18)
International Journal of Science Education ISSN 0950–0693 print/ISSN 1464–5289 online ©2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0950069042000243745
1684 U. BESSON
He illustrated this concept with fluid statics:

The equilibrium of floating bodies is object of a familiar culture that is woven of errors.
More or less clearly, an activity is attributed to the body that floats, or rather, that swims. If
one tries to push a log under water, it resists. The resistance is not simply attributed to
water. It is therefore difficult to make one understand Archimedes’ principle in its amazing
mathematical simplicity without previous criticism and disorganisation of all primitive intu-
itions. In particular, without this psychoanalysis of errors it will not be possible to make one
understand that the emerging body and the body completely immersed obey the same law.
(Bachelard 1938:18)
According to Piaget and Garcia, on the contrary:

Scientific knowledge is not a new category, fundamentally different and heterogeneous
regarding the pre-scientific thought and the techniques of practical intelligence … [it]
places itself in the extension of the previous norms of thought and practice, but incorporat-
ing new requirements of inner coherence (of the total system) and of experimental control.
(1983: 49)
A topography of the more common conceptions is now available. Similar concep-

tions are found in different geographic and cultural contexts, bringing to mind a
kind of ‘spontaneous physics’. Although these do not constitute an organic and
coherent set for the individual student, they show a non-negligible stability and
effectiveness in specific limited contexts. Some of these conceptions reveal remark-
able tenacity and can be found again partially modified or unchanged even after
having studied the subject at school.
Previous research has identified some characteristics of students’ conceptions
on fluids and on pressure, mainly at the primary and early secondary school level.
This article describes a research on this topic concerning populations at a higher
school level (upper secondary school and beginning of university), and is based on
some different points of view and situations.
The origins and typologies of the conceptions and reasoning expressed by
students are varied. They can derive from intuitive knowledge based on one’s
personal experience in everyday life or from elements suggested by education inter-
sected with personal ideas. Moreover, they can deal with more general tendencies in
the organization of reasoning and physical explanations. These three aspects have
been discussed in the present research.
One of the leading ideas of the present research is that a study of students’
ideas and reasoning should interact and be accompanied by a critical analysis of
the scientific content and its usual presentations in textbooks and teaching. Some
students’ difficulties in understanding and conceptions also seem to originate from
the specific didactic organization of the topic and from simplifications and sche-
matizations usually employed in teaching. In fact, if conceptions are formed on
the basis of personal experience, the school constitutes a relevant source of
suggestions and experiences for the older students, which strongly influence their
way of thinking.
The first section of this paper goes over some of the main results of previous
research on the topic. The second section shortly develops a content analysis, and
the third introduces the objectives and methods of the present research, whose
results are described and discussed in the following sections. The final section
supplies a wide concluding synthesis of the main results obtained and of a few key
ideas that have emerged, and discusses some consequences for teaching.
STUDENTS’ CONCEPTIONS OF FLUIDS 1685
Some results of previous research

Piaget and coworkers (Piaget and Garcia 1971; Piaget and Inhelder 1955) find that,
for younger children (stage I), air is not a permanent substance and only becomes
real when it is in movement, as if it were created or produced by the subject’s actions
or by other objects. Air is brought up often in explanations, although often in an
inopportune way or with an inversion between cause and effect (e.g. several children
think that it is the movement of the tree leaves that causes wind, rather than the
contrary). It is in successive stages that air gradually begins to be regarded as a
substance that exists by itself, even when it is motionless, and that can act on other
bodies, without appearing and disappearing unexplainably.
Séré (1982, 1986) agrees with Piaget’s results, that the existence of air is very
often associated with its movement (breath or wind). She also suggests that the idea
of wind can be more primitive than that of air. By using a simple experiment, in
which one pushes or pulls a syringe piston, she shows that for many pupils gases
exert actions only when they are in movement or if one exerts an action on them (‘air
pushes only when it is pushed’), actions exerted in any case in a single direction, that
of the applied force or movement, or again when they are warmed. Atmospheric air
is called ‘normal’ and many experiments are interpreted in terms of return to
normalcy. A zero pressure is often attributed to ‘normal’ air. Pupils assume that gases
with a pressure greater than the atmospheric pressure exert an action or a push on
objects, whereas they very rarely consider the existence of these forces in the case of
gases with lower pressure, which are really supposed to act by suction.
Borghi et al. (1988) studied the ideas of children aged six to eight years concern-
ing air and its properties. They find that for younger children the most frequent
typologies of explanations are pre-causal explanations (descriptive, teleological) or
those that reveal the perception of air only when it is in movement, whereas older
children also provide explanations using a single property of the air or making refer-
ence to the functions of air in connection with life.
Some other research has concerned the pupils’ definition for gases and the
distinction between gases, liquids and solids (Stachel and Stavy 1985, Stavy 1988).
Rozier (1988) and Rozier and Viennot (1991) show that, in their explanations
concerning gases, students at university level make a preferential association
between pressure and density of the gas. At a microscopic level, they make an assim-
ilation between pressure and the number of molecular collisions, which are strictly
associated with the molecular concentration. They tend not to consider the force of
shocks or speed, preferring the factors of a spatial type, an attitude that would be an
example of a more general tendency toward the spatializing of reasoning.
Engel Clough and Driver (1985) study ideas on the pressure of liquids and air.
They look for general explanatory structures, or ‘frameworks’, used by pupils in
several situations. In the case of air, they use a bottle with orange juice to be drunk
with a straw, a syringe with which one extracts water from a bowl and a cup washed
in warm water and turned upside down on a flat surface. They identify three main
structures of reasoning: that regarding the differences between inside and outside
pressure (of the straw, the syringe and the cup), which would be the correct expla-
nation, that regarding only the outside atmospheric pressure or that regarding the
vacuum force or suction.
For liquids, Engel Clough and Driver propose situations containing fishes in
bowls and a submarine in the sea, by asking to compare pressure ‘exerted by’ the
1686 U. BESSON
water at different depths, pressure in two containers of varying widths and down-
wards and lateral pressure. They find that most pupils (from 73% to 82%) think that
pressure increases with depth, but 40% responded by saying that pressure also
depends on the liquid’s total volume (it would be much greater in the wider
container); almost one-half think that pressure only acts downwards or that it is
stronger downwards than laterally. The authors suggest that pupils apply to liquids
their experience of solid bodies, for which ‘weight acts vertically downwards’.
Among the pupils who consider an equal pressure in all directions (19%), there are
some who associate pressure to the movement of liquid, thereby considering a
dynamic conception of pressure. Giese (1987) finds results similar to those of Engel
Clough and Driver.
Tytler (1992, 1998a, 1998b) studies children’s conceptions of air pressure. He
proposes 16 experimental tasks to classes of primary school children (age 6–11
years) and identifies nine explanatory conceptions or ‘interpretive frameworks’:

three pre-explanatory conceptions (descriptions, human agent, intentionality attrib-
uted to objects), two intermediate (unfocused references to air or water, ‘trapped’
image) and five advanced conceptions (competition for space, action of enclosed air,
suction effect, action of outside air, differential pressure). He also studied the consis-
tency with which children applied conceptions, the links that children make between
the different situations, the evolution of these conceptions across time and the
features of conceptual changes occurred during the activity sequences.
Kariotoglou et al. (1990) and Kariotoglou and Psillos (1993) studied concep-
tions on pressure in liquids with pupils in early secondary school. Again, the result
for the majority of pupils was that pressure increases with depth and is greater in a
wider container. They also find that for a majority of pupils pressure increases if
there is a boat or an object floating on the vertical axis of the considered spot. On
the other hand, a minority believe pressure to be greater at the bottom of a narrower
container, because the container would press the liquid, thereby making tighter
water molecules. They propose a classification of pupils’ conceptions into three pres-
sure models, going from the simplest to the most elaborate and more on par with a
physicist’s conception: the packed crowd model with an anthropomorphic echo in
which pupils consider, in a more or less explicit way, a variable density of liquids;
the pressure–force model, the most common, based on an identification of pressure
with the pressure force and in which the pressure force is often identified with the
liquid’s weight; and the liquidness model, less common, which considers pressure as
a property of the liquid and\or a function of the point. According to the authors, this
latter one is the closest to the scientific model. They insist that many pupils, after
having followed a course in physics, did not accept the idea that liquids are incom-
pressible and that their density is constant, a property considered to be part of the
scientific model of liquid. Conversely, one of the key ideas of my research is that
liquids must be considered as compressible, with a variable density, even though
these variations are generally very small and often unimportant in calculations. I
shall return on this point later.
Andreani Dentici et al. (1984) and Mullet and Montcouquiol (1988) study the
ideas of pupils concerning buoyant force and floatation for children aged 6–8 years
and for pupils aged 13–14 years, respectively. Younger children mainly use pre-
causal explanations (descriptive, finalist), which only make reference to the weight
(more frequently), type of material, shape and dimensions of the object. Older chil-
dren consider various factors, such as the volume or density of solids, the density of
liquid, the depth of immersion and the (horizontal or vertical) position of the object.
The liquid’s density and the object’s volume are two factors that the majority of
pupils take into account, mostly on an individual basis. Upthrust is often supposed
to increase when the object is immersed more deeply in water and is considered a
force of the liquid’s reaction to the weight of the immersed object.
Content analysis
All the situations studied in this research concern fluid statics in the presence of
gravity at constant temperature, whose physical analysis is relatively simple.
The value of the pressure p in a fluid is determined by the fluid statics equation:
gradp = µg (1)
where µ is the density of fluid and g the gravity acceleration (i.e. the gravita-
tional field at the point considered); that is, the variation of pressure in a certain
direction is proportional to the component of gravity field in that direction and
therefore isobaric surfaces are perpendicular to g. This formula indicates that pres-
sure p can be considered as a potential of the vectorial field of weight density µg, and
therefore that the curvilinear integral of µg between points 1 and 2 does not depend
on the path and is always equal to p2 – p1. In the simple case of the uniform gravita-
2
tional field, considering an upward vertical axis h, it is ∫ dp µ = − g ( h2 − h1 ). If only
1
one fluid is considered, µ being a sole function of p, this formula indicates that two
points at the same elevation h2 = h1 must have equal pressure p2 = p1, if a path within
the fluid connecting the two points exists. This last result appears quite abstract and
can be difficult to understand and to accept by many students, because it is valid
regardless of any complication to the shape of containers and indicates a connexion
property of the fluid in its totality.
In the case of a homogeneous fluid having uniform density, as often can be
considered in the case of liquids and gases for small ranges of elevation, the formula
is simplified and becomes p2 – p1 = −µg(h2 – h1) or ∆p = −µg∆h, which is the classical
Stevin’s law. In this case, Pascal’s principle applies, according to which a change in
pressure occurred in a certain spot of a fluid is transmitted in equal magnitude to the
entire fluid and to the walls of the containers.
It is worth noticing that liquids are not incompressible, yet not easily compress-
ible; that is, they have a strong coefficient of compressibility χ. For water, χ = 4.5 ×
10−10 Pa−1; this means that to produce a change in volume of 1%, at a constant
temperature, a pressure of 200 atm is needed, and that a pressure of 12,000 atm will
reduce the water volume by approximately 20% (Bridgman 1958). From another
point of view, going under water, in normal conditions, to a depth of 20 m results in
an 0.01% increase in water density and approximately 1% increase, to a depth of
2 km. These data clearly show that, in the most common cases, the variation in
liquid density can be neglected, but also that they are not incompressible.
The force exerted by a fluid on a surface S is F = ∫∫ pndS (where n is the unitary
s
vector perpendicular to the surface element dS). In the case of uniform pressure on
the surface (e.g. for horizontal surfaces), it is F = p∆S. A portion of fluid τ, having
volume V and delimited by a closed surface S, is subject to the pressure forces
1688 U. BESSON
exerted by the surrounding fluid (surface forces FS) and to the weight force (volume
force FV). The equilibrium condition imposes the sum of these forces to be zero: FS
+ FV = 0. Therefore:
∫∫s pndS = − ∫∫∫v µg ⋅ dV ( 2)
where the integral in second member is the total weight mf·g of the considered
portion of fluid. Transforming the surface integral in a volume integral, it is easy to
demonstrate that equations (1) and (2) are equivalent.
If the portion τ of fluid is replaced by a solid object, the pressure forces exerted
on it by the surrounding fluid remain the same as before and, therefore, according
to equation (2), their resultant FA is still equal and opposite to the weight of the
portion τ of fluid that the solid has replaced. This force FA is the buoyant force,
which is in fact the net pressure force acting on all the surface of the immersed solid:
FA = ∫∫ pndS = − ∫∫∫ µg ⋅ dV = − mf g .
This formula leads to the well-known rule of
s v
Archimedes’ Principle, according to which a solid immersed in a fluid is pushed up
by a force equal in magnitude to the weight of the displaced fluid; that is, better, to
the weight of a volume of fluid equal to the volume of the immersed solid. This link
between the pressure forces and the buoyant force is another delicate and difficult
point for many students.
To present these two results as ‘principles’, historically attributed to Pascal and
Archimedes, is misleading. In fact, students could consider them as independent
fundamental assertions, which do not demand further explanations, disconnected
from the explanatory system summarized earlier. On the contrary, they result from
equations (1) or (2) and derive from Newton’s laws and equilibrium conditions,
with the added hypothesis on the fluid’s behaviour. Moreover, in the presence of
gravity, Pascal’s principle is exactly valid only in the case of constant density, a
condition that is not always declared (for example, Resnick et al. [2002: 337] assert
that it is valid in any case, for liquids and gases).
Objectives and methods of this research

The science education research already described almost always concerns the lower
school levels (primary and early secondary school), and more often includes the
discussion of gases rather than liquids. The present research mainly concerns the
higher school levels (upper secondary school and the beginning of university), using
questions more appropriate to these levels, and devotes a special attention to liquids.
The objectives are to study:
● what students think about pressure in fluids and how these conceptions
change with educational level;
● how students imagine liquids and gases in their mechanical behaviour (ther-
mal effects are not considered), and how they reason about it;
● how students organize and coordinate different concepts and situations
concerning fluid statics (pressure and force, atmospheric and water pressure,
pressure and buoyant force, pressure and weight); and
● what difficulties and tendencies of reasoning, as more general cognitive
modalities, students reveal about this topic (features of causal reasoning, the
connection between local and global views, between formal laws and qualita-
tive intuitive explanations).
A preliminary inquiry was held, with observations and in-class discussions, trial
questionnaires given to small groups and interviews (see Besson 2001). These first
investigations led to formulation of some hypotheses regarding the difficulties pupils
and students encountered and the main reasoning connected to these difficulties,
taking into account the following aspects:
1. The presence of gravity strongly influences the image of the physical situa-
tion, awaking spontaneous conceptions connected to daily experiences,
focusing the attention on vertical actions, on the weight that ‘acts down-
wards’ and the need for supporting what is above.
2. The usual formulations of hydrostatics’ law in terms of ‘weight of fluid
column’, coupled with the students’ prior conceptions, can generate the
idea that pressure in fluids is related to the weight of fluid that is directly
over the considered point.
3. A connection is often missing between a global and formal description,
based on rules and formulas and on the consideration of the fluid as a
whole, and a local description, based on the interactions between the small
parts of fluid and the changes in its internal state.
4. The assertion that liquids are incompressible, unlike gases, often repeated
throughout textbooks and education, can create difficulties in the under-
standing of modifications occurred in liquids.
On the basis of these indications, I produced some questions addressed to larger
populations. The entire list of questions is presented in appendix 1.
To study what students think about pressure in fluids, the role of weight and the
connection between local and global descriptions, I proposed questions in which the
students’ ideas could be put into a critical situation, suggesting a contradictory solu-
tion with the correct answer:
● A submarine cave, in communication with the open sea, with an opening
large enough to suggest that water can circulate between the inside and the
outside of the cave, and at the same time small enough to give the sensation
that the cave is a protected and limited place. (Question 1, ‘Fish’; see
appendix 1).
● A room (question 2); this situation has a strong resemblance to that of the
submarine cave, the purpose was also to test whether the pupils perceive this
resemblance and whether or not they treat the cases of liquids and gases in
the same way.
● An irregularly shaped container (question 3).
In these three situations, the question is to compare pressure at two different points
at the same height. The correct answer is that pressure is the same at the two points
(see earlier Content analysis section).
To test these same conceptions in terms of forces and the connexions that
students make between atmospheric and water pressure and between pressure forces
and weight, I proposed questions 4, 5 and 6 (see appendix 1).
In question 4 (‘The three containers’) students are asked to compare forces
exerted by the water on the bottom of three containers of different shapes, whose
1690 U. BESSON
bottoms are equal, all filled to the same level with water. This is an example of the
‘hydrostatic paradox’ and the correct answer is that the three forces are equal. In
fact, the pressure at the bottom is the same, because the water level is the same; the
area S of the bottoms are equal, then forces are equal, because F = p·S.
Questions 5 and 6 (‘Pressure force of liquids and atmospheric pressure’ and
‘Pressure force and weight’) aim to study how students connect pressure in liquids
with atmospheric pressure and gravity. In particular, I want to study a phenomenon
already noticed in preliminary observations and in interviews: the fact that often one
forgets or does not consider the atmospheric pressure. So, in the formula p = patm +
µgh, it can happen that one only considers the term p = µgh, and then a force F =
µgh·S as acting on the bottom of the container, µgh = ∆p being the difference of pres-
sure between the free surface of liquid and the bottom of the container. This idea
brings one to conclude that, for a cylindrical container, the total force exerted by the
liquid on the bottom of the container is equal to the weight (as one can read, for
example, in Encyclopaedia Quillet 1994: 223). The error made by forgetting the air
pressure is not negligible, if one considers that for a cylindrical container of 1 m
height full of water, the force exerted by water on the bottom is about 11 times the
water’s weight.
The descriptions of pressure forces exerted on a body immersed in a fluid in the
presence of gravity, the connexion between these forces and buoyant force, and then
between local and global views, are investigated in questions 8 and 9 (‘Ball in water’
and ‘The party balloon’).
The images and physical reasoning that students express about the mechanical
behaviour of liquids and gases are analysed in questions 10 and 11: ‘Water-filled
syringe’, in which one considers a syringe filled with water and closed at the open
end, and ‘Air-filled syringe’. Here, the problem of incompressibility or compressibil-
ity of liquids and gases is considered. Students are asked whether pressure and
volume of water or air in the syringe change if one pushes on the piston, and why.
Correct answers are that pressure increases in both cases and that the volume of air
decreases and the volume of water decreases very little — so that one can also answer
that at a first level of approximation the water volume remains roughly unchanged.
The choice of the population is also linked to the objective of studying the
conceptions of young people who have a more advanced school level than that of
previous research carried out by other authors. The group in study is formed, on the
whole, by 428 pupils of upper secondary school, Italian and French, aged from 15
to 18 years, and of 458 Belgian first-year university students in scientific courses.
The number of pupils and students interrogated in every question changes accord-
ing to the questions, for practical reasons.
The university students received the questions after a general physics course on
fluid statics. The secondary school ‘younger’ pupils (grades 9 and 10, aged 15–16)
had not studied the topic in physics class, but rather in an integrated sciences course
in early secondary school; the ‘older’ pupils (aged 16–18 years) had followed a phys-
ics course in upper secondary school (Italian or French), including classic mechanics.
What students think about pressure in fluids

Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 (‘Fish’, ‘Room’, ‘Irregularly shaped container’, ‘The three
containers’), give information on students’ ideas about pressure in fluids and its rela-
tion with weight, and how these conceptions change with scholar level.
Table 1. Results of question 1, ‘Fish’: to compare water pressure in a

submarine cave and in the open sea, at the same height.
Pressure is:
Equal Greater in the cave Greater in open sea Total answers
Pupils aged 14–18 years 20% 45% 36% 229

University students 67% 8% 25% 213
The results of questions 1 and 2 are presented in tables 1 and 2. The first row
concerns the total number of secondary school pupils consulted, whereas the second
and third rows refer to the two subgroups of the ‘younger’ and ‘older’ pupils, and
the fourth concerns first-year university students.
A large majority of pupils considered a different pressure in the two points. As
for the fish, pupils were divided almost in half between the two possibilities: pressure
greater in the open sea or in the cave. By contrast, in the atmosphere’s situation,
there was a strong preference (52%) for a greater pressure in the room. Approxi-
mately one-half of pupils answered the two questions in the same way. One-half of
them explicitly arose the analogy between the two situations, an analogy more often
felt among those that give the answer that ‘the pressure is greater inside’.
The most frequently used justifications were:
(a) pressure depends on depth or on elevation;
(b) pressure depends on the quantity of water above or the weight of the water
above; and
(c) pressure is greater in a closed place, because air or water is locked there,
and therefore has less space.
Categories (a) and (b) belong to the same family, that of the idea that what provokes
pressure is the fluid above. There are, however, some nuances. Those that mention
depth usually do so in the case of water, and often incorrectly because they consider
the height of water to be directly on the vertical line up to the cliff’s level in the cave.
The justifications of type (b) often highlight an ‘active’, dynamic role of the fluid,
Table 2. Results of question 2, ‘Room’: to compare air pressure inside a

room and outside in the open air, at the same height.
Pressure is
Equal Greater inside the room Greater in open air Total answers

1692 U. BESSON
which pushes, ‘has some force’ or ‘exerts weight’. This last category seems to belong
to the conception that weight, which acts vertically downwards, creates pressure.
This extract of phrases used by a pupil during an interview well expresses this idea:
The fish in open sea has more water on its head … it has more cubic meters on the head …
a greater height on its head … it has more water on the head, so there is more pressure.
Category (c) is more often used for air than for water. In certain cases, reasoning
focuses only on the fluid and on the opposition closed/opened or more/less space.
Pressure is greater in a closed place, because air or water is locked there and has less
space, whereas in an open place there is less pressure, because air or water can move
more freely. In the other cases, the pupils make reference to an active role of the
walls, which compress and hinder fluid (see also Besson et al. 2001). Some extracts
of justifications well illustrate these ideas:
In a smaller place, the water is more compressed.

Outside, air is freer, then there is less pressure.
In the cave the water is more concentrated in a more compact place.
The walls of the room compress air.
The reasonings of this category could, in good part, fall under the notion that ‘pres-
sure is crowding’, but for those only appealing to the idea of closed or opened spaces
and of free or locked air, one could also envisage a more anthropomorphic or
psychological conception, according to which in a closed place, one feels
compressed and oppressed, whereas outdoors one is free, one can run, there are no
obstacles nor constraints.
This category is the most frequent in the lowest school levels and tends to
decrease in importance with age. It is much less frequent for the groups of pupils in
scientific options than for those in non-scientific options at the same grade level and
school. It seems to be a symptom of a rather elementary and little evolved physical
reasoning.
Certain pupils tried to apply the usual formula for the definition of pressure p =
F/S, where it was not appropriate, arriving at incorrect conclusions. For example, ‘in
the cave, the surface area is smaller therefore pressure is greater’. The same reason-
ing is also found for the room situation.
As regards university students, results show a clear evolution in comparison with
that of pupils: correct answers become a large majority, especially in the case of air,
and the conception that pressure is greater in a smaller and closed space is expressed
only by a very small minority.
Nevertheless, in the case of water, one-third of the students, even after teaching,
still considered that pressure is different for the two fishes, with a strong preference
for the greater pressure in an open sea (25%). This result confirms the strong resis-
tance of the reasoning based on the idea of the weight of the fluid above.
Justifications most used are of the same type as those indicated for the pupils,
yet much more present is the reference to the law of the hydrostatics, with the
formula ∆p = −µg∆h or in the verbal form, ‘same elevation, then same pressure’.
Similar results and the same conceptions were found in question 3, ‘Irregularly
shaped container’ (table 3).
Pupils who answered that pressure is greater in R, mainly expressed a concep-
tion of type (b):
Table 3. Question 3, ‘Irregularly shaped container’: to compare the

pressure at two points, S and R, at the bottom of an irregularly shaped
container filled with water.
p(S) = p(R) p(S) > p(R) p(S) < p(R) Total answers
Secondary school pupils 38% 33% 29% 117

Pressure is greater in R, because the water column is greater than in S [makes a drawing indi-
cating the different heights over the two points using lines].
Is greater in R, because a greater quantity of water acts on R.
Those answering that pressure is greater in S evoked a reasoning of type (c), arguing
that in S the space is smaller or more closed (8%), water is more compressed (16%)
or molecules would be more crowded or making more shocks on walls (6%).
Since the space in S is smaller water molecules are more concentrated and closer by.
Pressure is greater in S because there the container is smaller and narrower, and as a conse-
quence exerts a greater pressure.
Few students answer that pressure is the same everywhere, at all points, in a liquid
at equilibrium, sometimes referring to Pascal’s principle. Among pupils, this idea
appears in one-third of ‘equal pressure’ answers (13% of 38%), thereby reducing to
25% those answers expressed correctly, and perhaps even less if one considers that
there are answers without justification.
Pressure is equal in all the points of the liquid, as it is stated by Pascal’s principle.
Because pressure is equal in any considered point, regardless of the bowl’s shape.
Pressure forces, weight and hydrostatic paradox

In question 4, ‘The three containers’, students are asked to compare forces
exerted by the water on the bottom of the three containers, whose bottoms are
equal (table 4).
Moving from secondary school to university, correct answers ‘equal forces’
increase appreciably (from 14% to 33%), whereas the percentage of the answer
‘more force in the wider container \_/’ remains almost constant (60% and 59%).
Table 4. Question 4, ‘The three containers’: to compare the forces exerted

by the water on the bottom of three containers filled with water.
Force is:
Stronger in Stronger in Stronger in Weaker in

Equal (a) |_| (b) /_\ (c) \_/ (c) /_\ Total answers
Secondary school pupils 14% 0.7% 20% 60% 5% 141

University students 33% 1.5% 6% 59% 0% 455
1694 U. BESSON
Justifications confirm the strong presence of the equivalence ‘more water = more
force on the bottom’, using the idea that the weight of all the water in the container
‘acts’ on the bottom, which has to support it. These data show the persistence and
tenacity of this reasoning.
Almost all justifications given for the correct answer, ‘equal forces’, refer to the
fact that the height or depth of liquid is the same for all three containers, as pressure
depends only on the depth.
The percentage for the answer indicating a greater force in the more narrow
container /_\ is a minority, yet still rather high for secondary school pupils (20%),
whereas it almost disappears at the university level (6%). Justifications show that this
type of answer is linked to the conception that in a smaller space pressure is greater
and water more pressed, or to the idea that walls tilted towards the inside exert a
supplementary force, which makes the total force greater:
In the more narrow bowl water is more compressed.

[In the corner of the container /_\] there is a small space and therefore more pressure, the
water is surrounded by three walls, and therefore is more compressed.
We have already seen that this conception tends to decrease its presence the more
advanced the school level, until it becomes very rare at university.
On the coherence of pupils’ conceptions

Almost 75% of pupils who expressed conceptions of category (c) ‘less space then
more pressure’ did so for all three situations of fish, room and irregular container,
showing a relevant coherence in their reasoning. This percentage was considerably
lower for the three containers’ question, where it was often substituted by the
global idea of ‘weight of all water pressing on the bottom’. The conceptions of
categories (a) and (b) showed good coherence among situations involving liquids,
but a minor one between water and air situations. These explanations, in terms of
height, depth or ‘fluid column above’, are often considered differently for water
and air.
For example, during an interview, pupil D (aged 15) stated that the cases of
water and air are fundamentally different. In the ‘Room’ question, she opted for
equal pressure, because ‘it is always atmospheric pressure at sea level’. In the fish
situation she was switching between the answer ‘equal pressure’, based on the expe-
riences of submarines, and the answer ‘pressure greater in open sea’, based on the
conception of ‘fluid above’, finally deciding for the latter.
Another pupil, L (aged 13), showed a strong coherence of conception (b) in the
fish and room situations. Asked about pressure if the fish were to move to a different
position inside the cave or if the cave were bigger, he answered in coherence with
the idea of ‘height of water above’, height that he showed clearly on the figure. He
only changed his type of reasoning in the cases of the fish moving horizontally very
near to the rock inside the cave, when he evoked the idea that pressure would be
stronger since there would be more water in less space — an idea, however, that he
did not explain nor defend with conviction.
Both pupils were thrown off by their answers by suggesting that a difference in
pressure between the inside and outside (cave or room) should provoke an air or water
flow. After some hesitations, they agreed with this concept and, in fact, concluded
that if pressure were different, the fluid flow would quickly establish equilibrium. This
shows that a dynamic view of the establishment of equilibrium can help improve
pupils’ understanding of physical situation.
Pressure forces acting on an object immersed in water or in air

In questions 8a and 9a, students were asked about pressure forces acting on four
identical discs drawn at the top A, the bottom B, and the right and left sides C and
D of a football immersed in water and of a party balloon in air. Results are presented
in tables 5 and 6.
Concerning a football immersed in water, only 17% of pupils and 43% of
students gave the correct answers (a) or (b). Seventeen per cent of pupils and 19%
of students answered that there are four equal forces. According to 21% of pupils
and 6% of students, there is only one force below. The other answers are quite varied.
By regrouping, one finds that according to 14% of students there is no force over the
balloon, an idea which is supported by almost one-half of pupils (47%). Thirty two
per cent of pupils and 16% of students think that there are no lateral forces and 7%
of the students think that these forces are smaller than those above and below.
On the whole, only 24% of pupils and 62% of students consider that there is a
force exerted on the bottom and on the top of the ball, and that the force below is
greater.
There are several differences between answers concerning the balloon in the air
and the ball in water. In the case of air, answers containing a force at the bottom and
at the top of the balloon, with the force below being greater, become a minority
(21% and 31%, respectively, for pupils and students). A significant percentage
(16% and 28%) answer that force at the top is the greatest or the only existing force,
which was very rare in the case of water, and 18% of pupils consider that there is no
force below. Answers ‘four equal forces’ are also more numerous (20% and 33%).
Moreover, according to 37% of pupils there are no lateral forces.
With respect to the case of water, in air pupils seem to consider less frequently
the existence of forces on the bottom of the balloon and more frequently that on the
Table 5. Question 8a, ‘Ball in water’: forces exerted by the water at the top
A, at the bottom B, to the right C, to the left D of a ball immersed.
Secondary school University
pupils students
Answer n % n %
(a), (b) Correct answer or F(B) > F(A); F(C) = F(D) 18 17 90 43

(c) F(B) > F(A) ≥ F(C) = F(D) 2 1.8 14 6.8
(d) Only F(B) > F(A) 4 3.7 16 7.7
(e) Four equal forces 19 17 39 19
(f) Only F(B) 23 21 13 6.3
(g) F(A) > F(C) = F(D) > F(B) or F(A) greater 5 4.6 8 3.9
(h) F(B) > F(D) = F(C) 21 19.3 10 4.8
Other 17 16 17 8
Total answers 109 100 207 100
No answer 2 1.8 7 3.4
1696 U. BESSON
Table 6. Question 9a, ‘Party balloon’: forces exerted by air at the top A, at
the bottom B, to the right C, to the left D of a balloon.
Secondary University
Answer school pupils students
n % n %
(a), (b) Correct answer or F(B) > F(A); F(C) = F(D) 12 12 12 29

(c) F(B) > F(A) ≥ F(C) = F(D) 2 2.0 0 0
(d) Only F(B) > F(A) 6 5.9 1 2.4
(e) Four equal forces 20 20 14 33
(f) Only F(B) 13 13 3 7.1
(g) F(A) > F(C) = F(D) > F(B) or F(A) stronger 13 13 11 26
(h) F(B) > F(D) = F(C) 13 13 0 0

No force 5 5 0 0
Other 17 17 1 2
No answer 10 9.9 4 9.5
top — this latter often considered as being stronger than those below. They less
frequently envisage the variations of pressures with the height, for the small
distances between the top and bottom of the balloon. They seem to think, rather,
that the balloon ‘tends’ to go upwards and that air above becomes an obstacle, with
a downward force acting on the top of the balloon.
How students coordinate different concepts and situations

concerning fluid statics
Pressure force of liquids, weight, and atmospheric pressure
In question 5, ‘Pressure force of liquids and atmospheric pressure’ (results presented
in table 7), students were asked whether or not the force exerted by the water on the
bottom of a container changes if the atmospheric pressure decreases.
The majority (53% of pupils and 68% of students) answered correctly that pres-
sure decreases, even though among the pupils only 20% gave a correct justification;
that is, since p = patm+ µgh, if patm decreases, p must also decrease.
More than one-third of the pupils (36%) and more than one-quarter of the
students (28%) thought that the air pressure does not influence the force exerted
by water on the bottom of the container. Their justifications were of the type ‘it is
the weight of the water and gravity which counts, not atmospheric pressure’. For
example:
Only the weight of the water is important.
It is the gravity which can change the force of the water and not the pressure of the air.
Question 6, ‘Pressure force and weight’(to 123 pupils, 12 of whom did not answer,
and 46 students) asked whether force exerted by the water on the bottom of a cylin-
drical container is: (a) equal, (b) greater than, or (c) smaller than the weight of the
water.
Table 7. Question 5, ‘Pressure forces of liquids and atmospheric

pressure’: if the atmospheric pressure decreases, does the force
exerted by water on the bottom of the container change?
Force Force does Total
decreases not change Others answers No answer
Secondary school pupils 53% 36% 11% 111 12

University students 68% 28% 3.5% 142 6
Answer (a) (force on the bottom equal to the weight of water) was given by 55%
of pupils and 42% of students, with justifications of the sort:

… the pressure is nothing but the weight of a column of fluid, in this case water.
… the force exerted by water on the bottom of the container does it is his weight.
The correct answer, (b), was given by 33% of pupils and 24% of students, but only
eight pupils (7%) and three students correctly justified by evoking the atmospheric
pressure — 15 pupils (13%) did not give justifications. The other justifications make
reference to: the increase in pressure with depth; the idea that, besides the weight,
there would also be water pressure; and a confusion between mass and weight in the
formula F = mg.
It is greater, because weight force is F = mg, so it equals the weight time 9.8.
Because there is also the pressure of the water, which is greater at the bottom of the bowl.
Pressure forces and buoyant force

The connection between buoyant force and pressure forces acting on a solid, in this
particular case a football immersed in water and a party balloon in air, are studied
in questions 8b and 9b, where students were asked whether the forces indicated in
the answers to question 8a and 9a, had something to do with buoyant force. Results
are presented in tables 8 and 9.
Concerning the ball in water, question 8b, certain ‘yes’ answers (75% for the
pupils and 24% for the students) are difficult to classify, because they are rough
answers, with no details, or accompanied with a generic sentence on buoyant force,
for example:
Yes, because buoyant force concerns any object immersed into a liquid.
A finer analysis of justifications given by every student, taking into consideration

their answers to question 8a, shows that a number of these students certainly had a
wrong idea, because they considered that there are no pressure forces below or over
the ball, or they thought that there are four pressure forces of equal magnitude acting
on four discs drawn on the balloon. It is clear that, with these ideas, these students
cannot have a conception of buoyant force as a resultant of pressure forces. For
example:
Question 8a: F(A) < F(C) = F(D) [no force in B]. The water does not exert force upward.
Question 8b: Yes.
1698 U. BESSON
Table 8. Question 8b, ‘Ball in water’: do water pressure forces have

anything to do with buoyancy?
Secondary
school University
pupils students
Buoyancy n % n %
(a), (b) Has nothing to do with this, it is another force which 8 11 47 31

adds to that
(c), (d) It is the force on the bottom, it concerns only this force 6 8 46 30
(e) It is the resultant of the pressure forces, it is an effect of 4 5 18 12
these forces
(f1) Answer ‘yes’, but without justifications or with 20 27 21 14
irrelevant ones
(f2) Answer ‘yes’, but with clearly wrong indications 35 48 15 9.9
Other 0 0 4 2.6
No answer 38 34 17 10
Question 8a: Forces have the same intensity.

Question 8b: Yes, because the buoyant force is equal to the weight of the volume of liquid
displaced by the ball.
This analysis allows these answers to be divided into two categories: (f2), certainly
erroneous, and (f1), still doubtful, recovering from a reasoning that is not well
clarified.
Answers (e), which clearly link buoyant force to pressure forces, are very rare —
only 5% among pupils and 12% among students. Those that, on the contrary,
sharply expressed that buoyant force is other matter than pressure forces were 11%
of pupils and 31% of students.
No, buoyant force only pushes from the bottom upwards, it has nothing to do with pressure
exerted by a liquid surrounding an object.
In B there are in fact two forces which add up: pressure forces and buoyant force.
Table 9. Question 9b, ‘Party balloon’ of 111 pupils: do air pressure forces
have anything to do with buoyancy?
Buoyancy n %
(a) Has nothing to do with this 32 49

(a′) The buoyant force concerns only liquids, not gas 18 28
(c), (d) It is the force on the bottom, it concerns only this force 2 3
(e) It is the resultant of the pressure forces, it is an effect of these forces 1 2
(f1) Answer ‘yes’, but without justifications or with irrelevant ones 2 3
(f2) Answer ‘yes’, but with clearly wrong indications 10 15
Total answers 65 100
No answer 46 41
According to 8% of pupils and 30% of students buoyant force concerns only the
bottom of the ball (answers (c) and (d)).
Force acting on B is buoyant force, whereas forces on C and D are due to the pressure in
the liquid.
In total, at least 19% of pupils and 61% of students (answers (a)–(d)) declared that
in their opinion buoyant force is not the resultant of pressure forces; they assert that
it does not have anything to do with these pressure forces or that it concerns only
the force at the bottom of the ball, or it is the force at the bottom. By also adding
answers (f2), one obtains 67% of pupils and 71% of students who do not make a
correct connection between buoyant force and pressure forces. Moreover, also (f1)
answers are doubtful.
The disconnection between buoyancy and pressure forces is much more wide-
spread in the case of air (Table 9). Seventy-seven per cent of pupils declared it
explicitly and another 15% showed it indirectly in the answers of the type (f2).
Indeed more than one-quarter (28%) justified their answer by writing that ‘buoy-
ancy concerns only liquids, not gases’. There is only a small 5% who could have a
correct conception on this aspect. The very high number of no answers can also be
an expression of difficulty with this question concerning buoyancy in air, given that
the no answers of the same pupils are much less numerous in questions 9a and on
the ball in water.
Some general tendencies of students’ reasoning

Causality and identity: pressure force is weight
The double nature of the usage and meaning of the word ‘weight’, and of its derived
words, is well known: weight as a quantity and weight as an action (cf. Piaget and
Garcia 1971). The teacher can well say that weight is a force exerted on the object
by the Earth, but commonsense tells us that it is rather an intrinsic property of the
object and, more, an active property, a virtue with which the object can exert on other
objects. In the current usage, as well as in a figurative sense, weight is often consid-
ered as an action exerted by the weighty object and is supposed to be able to be
transferred, totally or partially, to the objects below. Textbooks and teachers can
also favour this idea, using expressions of the type ‘let us take a weight’ or ‘one
attaches a weight’. Hydrostatic paradox is considered as a paradox because one
thinks that the liquid should transmit, should ‘exert’ its weight, onto objects below
and so one is amazed that a liquid can exert a force greater than its weight or that
two quantities of liquid having different weights can exert the same force.
The strong tenacity of the explanation of the pressure in terms of ‘weight of what
is above’ has led to the hypothesis that, for many students, an identification between
pressure and weight exists, as if they were two aspects of the same thing. To test this
hypothesis, the question entitled ‘Interactions’ was given to 46 students (first univer-
sity year) and 36 teachers (in initial or in-service training). They were asked about
which of the four fundamental types of force (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong
or weak) a swimmer feels on his eardrums, when deep under water (see also Besson
1995, Besson at al. 2001). The results were very clear and homogeneous: 94%
answered that it was a gravitational force:
The force is due to the weight of the water situated above …
… because it depends on the acceleration of gravity (Stevin’s law)
1700 U. BESSON
… because it is a phenomenon linked to weight force, and so to the attraction exerted by

Earth on the water
The force exerted is weight.
The justifications show the shift in meaning from descriptions involving the influ-
ence of gravity on the value of pressure, towards an identification of the pressing
force with weight: pressure is due to weight, weight causes, creates pressure, the press-
ing force is weight; that is, a gravitational force. Expressions of the same type were
also found in answers to question 6 ‘Pressure force and weight’:
In my opinion, the force exerted by the water on the bottom of the container depends on the
weight of water, indeed I think that it is just the weight force.
Force is exerted by the weight of the water, the weight of the water acts on the container,
force is weight.
The importance of weight in common reasoning and the emphasis traditional teach-
ing places on the role of gravity in the explanation of hydrostatic pressure have led
students and teachers to establish an identification between pressure forces and
weight.
Indeed, a confusion often arises in common reasoning between the conditions
of production of the phenomenon and the cause that actually produces it, between
provoking and producing a phenomenon. Bachelard (1949: 209) speaks of a ‘trig-
ger causality, which sets objective causalities into action.’ For example, if you are
holding an object in your hand and you open your hand, the object falls. What is
the cause of the object’s fall — that you opened your hand, or the gravitational
force of Earth? One might answer ‘both’, yet one cannot do without taking into
account the different nature of them. Opening the hand enables the effect of the
force of gravity to manifest itself as downward acceleration, but it is the force of
gravity that makes the object fall downwards. This ambiguity, which can be called
a confusion between contingent cause and efficient cause (cf Besson 2001, 2004),
shows up in the case of fluids in the presence of gravity. What is the cause of the
change in pressure with depth or altitude? The gravity force provokes the increase
of pressure forces, but they are interactions between parts of the fluid and the solid
walls that ‘produce’ it, interactions whose nature is electromagnetic. Gravity is a
condition that allows the variation of pressure to occur, whereas the local, surface
interactions actually produce this variation.
Displacement or delocalization of forces

Several justifications of answers to question 5, ‘Pressure force of liquids and atmo-
spheric pressure’, state the idea that air acts directly on the bottom of the container
and that there are thus two different forces that are applied to the bottom of the
container — one exerted by the water and the other exerted by the air above
the liquid — instead of a single force exerted by the water, which is in touch with
the bottom of the container. The magnitude of this force is linked to the water
pressure at the bottom of the container, which can be related to the air’s pressure
by using the formula p=pair + µg∆h. In the explanation given by these students, this
formula, converted in terms of forces, is interpreted as the addition of two forces
exerted by two different bodies, to find their resultant: ptot = pair + pwater and so Ftot
= Fair + Fwater. This reasoning can either lead to the exact answer, that force on the
bottom decreases, if the pupil thinks of a total force of the water and the air, or to
the answer that force does not change, if the pupil clarifies that total force
decreases but the force actually exerted by water, which is wanted, does not
change.
The atmospheric pressure exerts pressure on the top of the liquid and therefore on the bottom
of the container.
The pressure exerted by the water itself on the bottom is identical, but the atmospheric pres-
sure is added to that …
Here, there is a shift in the meaning of the formula. Algebraic terms to the right of
the equation are materialized, and the agent of the pressure force on the bottom of
the container is partially moved: it is not only the water in contact with the bottom,
but also the air over the water, which seems to act directly on the bottom.
Global description and local reasoning

The previous reasoning can also be an effect of an absence of connection between a
global description related with the law of hydrostatics and a local description of the
contact forces exerted by the fluid. The need of a causal explanation, by arranging
only the tool, formal and global, that is the formula of the law of hydrostatics, leads
students to look for cause in the terms of this same formula, but there they can only
find a verbal explanation, which hides the forces really implied, surface forces, which
act locally.
This lack of connection between global and local descriptions can be observed
in other previous situations.
In the ‘Fish’ situation, some justifications show the difficulty of certain
students in trying to apply the law of hydrostatics, shifting between a global and
local view:
It is true that they [the fish] are at the same depth, so they ought feel the same pressure. But
the water above the fish in the sea is a greater mass than that of water that is above the fish
in the cave. The fish in the sea therefore feels greater pressure than the other fish.
Answering question 8b about the buoyant force, several students seem to be

confused because of the well-known formula connecting buoyant forces to the
volume of the ‘displaced’ liquid and to the density, which to them seems incompat-
ible with the pressure forces that are contact forces, acting on every small part of the
surface of the ball, and which depend on the surface and on the depth:
No, because buoyant force depends on the volume of the object in question and on the
density of the liquid, whereas pressure is not influenced by the volume of the object.
No, in the formula of buoyant force, the force exerted by water on the points of the balloon
is not taken into account.
How do students imagine the mechanical behaviour of liquids and

gases and how they reason about it?
In questions 10 and 11, ‘Water-filled syringe’ and ‘Air-filled syringe’, students are
asked whether pressure and volume of water or air in the syringe change, if one
pushes on the piston.
1702 U. BESSON
Table 10. Question 10, ‘Water-filled syringe’: if one pushes on the piston,
do the pressure and volume of the water in the syringe increase,
decrease or remain unchanged?
Secondary school pupils (n = 120) University students (n = 214)
(a) p↑ V↓ 26% 26%

(b) p↑ or ↑≅ V↓≅ 1,7% 11%
(c) p↑ V= 52,5% 44%
(d) p= V= 12,5% 15%
Other, not clear 7,5% 4%
Internal and external variations: are liquids compressible?

In question 10 (results presented in table 10), results are similar for pupils and
students. A majority (66% of pupils and 59% of students) wrote that volume does
not change (13% and 15% answered that pressure also does not change), and 29%
of pupils and 38% of students envisaged a change in volume. Twelve per cent of
students clarified that a change of volume exists, but it is very small, the volume
remains almost equal, except for a very small decrease. This specification is made
very rarely by pupils.
Justifications are not numerous. They can be classified in two main categories
that I shall call ‘internal’ and ‘external’ (or ‘formal’), even though, for certain
students, elements of both categories are present together.
In the first, ‘internal’ (12% and 17% of the total), the students’ reasoning
involves the existence of changes in the internal state of liquid – elasticity of water,
the tendency to return to its initial volume, molecular behaviour of liquid, local
deformations transmitted in the liquid. In these cases, the student tries to construct
a personal image of what happens in the liquid.
If pressure increases, volume decreases and the density of water increases, because water
molecules will be better assembled and regrouped.
In the second category, ‘external’ or ‘formal’ (14% and 27% of the total), students
reason about the relation p = F/S or from general assertions or rules, as ‘liquids are
incompressible’.
Pressure increases, because it is proportional to the force exerted by the piston on the water’s
surface in the syringe, p∼F, but volume does not change, because liquids are incompressible.
The confusion that can be engendered with this assertion, often repeated in teach-
ing, is also shown by the fact that several students interpret it as meaning that even
pressure cannot change, as is noted in the word ‘incompressible’.
The pressure of the water in the syringe remains the same, because the water is incompress-
ible. Volume remains also unchanged. Neither volume, nor pressure change.
According to some students, water has a minimum limit volume, for which it ‘is
totally compressed’, and beyond which it cannot be compressed any further:
The volume of water decreases, but only until a limit value, beyond which it will not be able
to decrease any more and our efforts will no longer be of use to anything.
It is interesting to note that most ‘external’ justifications give an answer without
change of volume, whereas the ‘internal’ ones almost always give an answer with a
decrease in volume. It seems that consideration of the internal state of liquid leads
students to take into account modifications caused by the pushing of the piston
giving the idea of a small deformation, a compression of liquid.
Considering the insistence of school texts and teachers on the presumed incom-
pressibility of liquids, to still find almost 30% of pupils and 40% of students who
envisage a variation of volume, with many others expressing so much uncertainty on
this point, could mean that the spontaneous conception that prevails is that liquids
are compressible, at least a little, perhaps according to the primitive idea that ‘if you
push on it, it will be crushed’, whereas it is the school’s influence that creates the
idea of the incompressibility of liquids.
This hypothesis seems to be confirmed by the answers to the same question
given by a group of 22 teachers in training. Nearly the same percentages as those of
university students are found: 59% for the answer p↑V=, 14% for p↑V↓ and 27%
for p↑V↓≅. Almost all the justifications given for answers without a change in
volume repeat that liquids are incompressible. Sometimes, this indisputable asser-
tion creates uncertainty and embarrassment to some teachers; they repeat it, but do
not seem well convinced of its meaning or of its actual validity:
Water is, by definition, an incompressible liquid, so volume varies little, one will say that it
remains unchanged.
Volume remains constant, according to the incompressibility of water. But in practice, water
is a little bit compressible, so volume decreases only slightly.
Air compressibility
All the pupils and a part of the students who answered the ‘Water-filled syringe’
question also answered a similar question on a syringe containing only air. Results
are presented in table 11.
Here too, results are quite similar for pupils and students. Answer p↑V↓ prevails
very sharply (64% and 78%, respectively, for pupils and students). There is almost
an inversion of percentages with regard to the case of water, between answers with
or without a change in volume: for pupils, 29% and 66% for water versus 67% and
29% for air. There is, however, a high percentage of pupils (29%) and students
(18%) who think that the volume of air does not change.
This latter result can be compared with that obtained, on a similar question, in
a national inquiry to estimate scientific knowledge at grade 9 (age 15 years), organized
in Sweden in 1992 (cf. Andersson and Bach 1996). The question proposed specified
Table 11. Question 11, ‘Air-filled syringe’: if one pushes on the piston, do
the pressure and volume of the air in the syringe increase, decrease or
remain unchanged?
Secondary school pupils (n = 120) University students (n = 214)
(a) p↑ V↓ 64% 78%

(b) p↑ V↓≅ 1% 2%
(c) p↑ V= 21% 17%
(d) p= V= 6.7% 0%
Other, not clear 7.5% 2.2%
1704 U. BESSON
that the distance between the piston and the bottom of the cylinder was 10 cm and
pupils should choose among five possible answers. Forty-two per cent of the pupils
(n = 3103) answered that it is not possible to advance the piston (incompressible air);
the others answered that the piston will move either about 1 mm (33%), or about 1
cm (15%), or several centimetres (4%), or even until the bottom of the cylinder (4%).
Justifications for answers p↑V↓ often evoke the rule p∼1/V and the idea that air
will be denser and more firmly packed, sometimes adding the idea of a minimum
limit volume.
Air pressure increases and volume decreases. In fact, in gases, distances between molecules
are very large, so by exerting a force this space can be compressed.
The volume of air decreases until stabilized, because it is possible to compress a gas much
more than it is to compress water.
Justifications for answers without a change in volume also evoke the fact that ‘there
is no exit’, ‘that water and air do not escape nor disappear’.
Almost one-half of the pupils answered the two questions 10 and 11 on air and
water in the same way. Almost all (29/31) those who gave the answer p↑V↓ for
water, gave the same answer for air; vice versa, if volume is considered unchanged
for air, generally it is also for water (32/35).
Conclusions: common reasoning and teaching

Results show that proposed questions were not obvious for many students. Certain
questions appear as a source of difficulty and confusion.
Use and misuse of formulas

Rules or learnt formulas do not seem to be decisive for students. When they are
evoked (p = F/S, ∆p = −µg∆h or similar), they are often interpreted incorrectly or
they are quickly put aside because another stronger conception prevails and another
typology of explanation is felt necessary. For example, definition p = F/S can lead to
the answer that pressure is greater in a cave or in a room than outside, because ‘the
surface area is smaller and therefore pressure is greater’. Pascal’s principle, establish-
ing that a variation of pressure provoked on a certain part of the liquid transfers
equally throughout the entire liquid, is often interpreted by the meaning that pres-
sure is always equal in all parts of the liquid.
In the law of hydrostatics, expressed in mathematical or verbal form, the quan-
tity h, height or depth, is often interpreted as the height of the fluid directly on the
vertical line above the considered point, what leads to the conclusion that in a cave
pressure is less or that a different pressure exists in two points at the bottom of a
irregularly shaped container.
In other cases, this law is well interpreted in the form ‘at the same height, pressure
will be the same’, but it does not seem to convince or satisfy the student’s need of an
explanation, because it is contradictory to its deeper personal typologies of reasoning.
Two different descriptions of fluids in teaching physics

A dichotomy appears between two very different ways of looking or studying fluids,
which can be found in physics textbooks and syllabus, especially for gases.
On the one hand, fluid pressure is seen as the ‘crowding’ of particles or matter,
with the addition, for higher school levels, of molecular kinetics. It is the case for situ-
ations, typical in teaching, such as cylinder gas with a piston. In these problems, the
top and the bottom do not exist and one can speak of ‘gas pressure’, supposing that
it is the same in all points. Gravity is excluded from these descriptions, because it is
not considered significant for the problems taken into consideration, a procedure
that is well justifiable and very common in physics.
On the other hand, there are situations in the presence of gravity, in which all
explanations switch towards the consideration of the equilibrium between the pres-
sure forces and the weight of the fluid. The image of more or less crowded particles
is forgotten in favour of that of something that pushes downwards and that must be
supported by what is below, so that there is equilibrium. It is the case of atmosphere
and the variation of pressure with regards to elevation, or the case of water in a
swimming pool, a lake, the sea, a container or in a U tube.

Connection between these two types of situations and explanations is very rarely
approached at the school levels envisaged here. Confusion can arise for those
students who have not quite understood the meaning and the status of this double
approach, and thereby they believe it possible to use them everywhere, as they see fit.
Liquids seem to suffer most from this disconnection. Shaken between an assim-
ilation to gases and a resemblance with solids, they do not seem to have a clear status
in pupils’ representations. Liquids do not seem to push everywhere, nor do they
escape in any direction, as gases do; rather, they stay in the opened container and,
if they move spontaneously, always flow downwards. From the primary school
onwards, children learn that rivers slide towards the sea, always in a downward
motion, and that liquids are incompressible, unlike gases. But they are not even
considered as solids, because they do not ‘hold’ by themselves without lateral walls.
An ice cube remains stable placed on a horizontal table, while water would pour
down everywhere.
Two categories of students’ conceptions on fluids

Two categories concerning the pupils’ conceptions appear from this inquiry as an
explanation for the majority of justifications given by the students. Each of these
categories can be subdivided even further into two subtypologies.
The first category is that a fluid confined to a smaller place will have a greater
pressure; in short, ‘smaller space, then greater pressure’. This smaller space can be
the cave of the ‘Fish’ question, the room in the ‘Room’ question, and an angle or a
little space between adjoining walls in the ‘Irregularly shaped container’ and ‘The
three containers’ questions.
This category joins two types of reasonings: one asserts that fluid, in less space,
is ‘more firmly packed’, and the other that the solid walls surrounding the fluid push
and compress the fluid. This category is more present in the case of air than it is for
water, and it is more frequent in lower school levels tending to decrease in impor-
tance with the school level, until becoming a sharp minority at the beginning of
university. It seems to be a symptom of quite an elementary and rather undeveloped
physical reasoning.
The second category focuses on the role of weight.
Indeed, the presence of gravity and weight, with relevance to memory and a
direct daily experience, is an element that changes the pupil’s ‘vision’ and destabilizes
1706 U. BESSON
him/her, activating an anthropomorphic intuition. The ‘just weight’ conception is a

very widespread and firm reasoning: weight ‘acts’ downwards, so what determines
pressure or pressure force on a horizontal surface is the weight of what is above.
Moreover, these ideas led many students (and teachers) to make these two related
but different phenomena coincide: pressure forces are not only considered due to
weight, caused by weight, but also to be the weight.
Two variants appear in this category: ‘more water, then more force on the
bottom’ and ‘overhead weight’ conceptions.
The first implements a global reasoning, whereby fluid is considered in its total-
ity. According to this conception, pressure and force depend by weight or quantity
of the fluid above. Two aspects join here: the non-differentiation between pressure
and force on the one hand, and the ‘solidification’ of fluid, whose entire weight must
be supported by what is below, on the other. On this basis, pupils can conclude, in
question 3, that force exerted by the liquid on the bottom is greatest for the
container having the largest top \_/. Moreover, in the case of a cylindrical container,
this force is considered equal to the weight of the liquid, thus forgetting the effect of
atmospheric pressure. No more detailed and localized analysis seems to occur in this
type of reasoning, the ‘view’ of the pupil being global. Apparently a quite primitive
explanation, yet one that nonetheless turns out to be very resistant propagating until
students at the beginning of university, even after a classic theoretical course on fluid
statics.
The second conception reveals a finer analysis, because it puts in relation a point
of the fluid with the fluid directly above: it is the conception according to which pres-
sure depends on the weight of the fluid’s column directly lying over the considered
point. In brief: ‘the water column above’ or ‘overhead fluid’ conception, according
to the effective expression of a pupil. The surface below has to ‘support’ that fluid
which is exactly above, as is the case in boxes that lean on other boxes. This analogy
could also be productive if it did not limit any idea of action in a vertical direction,
excluding any possible horizontal interactions. This ‘solidification’ of the column
fluid prevents from understanding that the equilibrium of a liquid in a container asks
for different conditions, especially as regards the role of walls. By neglecting to take
into account horizontal interactions, several students can conclude that pressure in
a submarine cave would be smaller than in the open sea, although the considered
points are at the same elevation.
Local actions and global effects

This observation brings one to consider another characteristic of students’ reason-
ings — the lack of connection between local actions and global effects, between
what happens in various spots of fluid and the global result. The difficulty of imple-
menting this connection seems to be the main critical point for understanding the
physical situations in this study. This is also linked to a tendency some students
showed in displacing or delocalizing forces and causes, so that the air over a liquid
in a container can be considered as directly acting on the bottom of the container,
two different forces acting on it, one exerted by water and the other by air over the
liquid.
Questions regarding balloons in water or in air have shown that, even though
students know that pressure increases with depth, they are not sure about pressure
forces exerted by the fluid on the balloon. A large majority deny any relation
between these pressure forces and buoyant force. For many students, buoyant force
is another force that adds to the pressure forces.
These results show that students have difficulty making a connection between
the global rule of Archimedes’ principle and the local actions, in terms of pressure
forces. Indeed, several students stress the contrast between the global nature of
buoyant force, considered as a volume force acting on whole balloon, and pressure
forces, which are local contact forces acting on every small part of the balloon’s
surface: a contrast so radical that the connection between the two phenomena
becomes difficult to grasp. For many students buoyant force seems to be a special,
fundamental force, whose origin does not need further justifications (on the
contrary, it can constitute a basis for explaining other phenomena and forces).
The small and the zero, to calculate and to understand

A connection between local actions and global effects asks for a systemic reasoning,
more articulated and complex than the previous, but that can only satisfy the
requirement of a dynamic explanation in terms of local interactions, capable of real-
izing the mechanism that allows the establishment of the equilibrium situation, by
surmounting apparent contradictions between certain formal laws and the fluid’s
local behaviour.
In this way, the assertion, often repeated as a definition or an axiom that ‘liquids
are incompressible’, creates misunderstandings and contradictions. Moreover, it
must be said that liquids really are compressible and that denying its compressibility
also means avoid an important current of experimental research in physics (Aitken
and Tobazéor 1998).
Besides being more correct in physics, the idea of a small compressibility of
liquids can constitute a didactic resource to help pupils to build an image of what
goes on in the liquid, which could entail a better understanding of fluid statics. The
variations of volume can often be neglected in calculations, but they are essential in
understanding the situation aided by a physical intuition. In fact, it can happen that
students are able to do calculations without having really understood their physical
meaning. Generally, it is indeed important to highlight the strong conceptual
differences in physics between a very small quantity and a zero quantity.
For example, the law of hydrostatics establishes that pressure in a liquid
increases with depth. But one can wonder as to how the liquid at the bottom is
different from that at the top, allowing for greater pressure. If nothing changes
(temperature, density, composition), this difference becomes a mystery. So, it is
necessary to activate a local reasoning, and therefore the idea that pressure is
connected to density becomes useful. Indeed, at constant temperature, it is solely
the difference of density that can justify the difference of pressure. It is not enough
to say that to have equilibrium pressure must be greater below; it is also necessary to
imagine how that can arrive, which modifications intervene so that the liquid can
have a greater pressure.
Formulas and mechanism

In this perspective, teachers should present both a qualitative reasoning, including a
mechanism producing phenomena, and a quantitative treatment, using formulas and
mathematical developments. Moreover, they should show the coherence between
1708 U. BESSON
the two approaches, clearly stating the order of magnitude of physical quantities and
the approximations that one can apply according to any given situation.
A short teaching sequence based on these ideas, taking into account some early
results of this research, has been designed and has been experimented with first-year
university students (see Besson 2001, Besson et al. 2003, Besson and Viennot 2004,
Viennot et al. 2002). The sequence proposed a model of liquids based on a mechan-
ical analogy at the mesoscopic level. It was suggested that students mentally break
down liquids into small parts interacting with each other. Indeed, an analysis in
terms of elements of fluids at a mesoscopic level is the standard method used in fluid
mechanics. The didactical aim was to make this mesoscopic decomposition
concrete, appeal to students’ intuition and connect the local and global descriptions,
suggesting an analysis in terms of a transmission of changes. The objects chosen as
analogues of mesoscopic units of liquid were rubber balls that could be deformed
and compressed and react to deformations with elastic forces in all directions. The
rubber balls were not the analogues of molecules, but of elements, droplets of fluid.
At the beginning of the sequence, a mechanical analysis was made of a series of
balls; first aligned horizontally and pushed against a vertical barrier, then vertically
with a downward push and vertically with an upward push. Then, the analogy
between the rubber ball model and liquids were proposed, analysing pressure in a
closed container filled with water, using a piston to push on the water. The defor-
mations of balls were considered in the analysis, but it was explained that under
normal conditions different approximations can be made for rubber balls, liquids
and gases, due to the difference in the coefficients of compressibility.
Results have shown that the model stimulated more powerful and articulated
reasoning in the students, especially in reconciling a global description based on
formulas with the analysis of local interactions, and understanding what happens in
all parts of the fluid when something is changed.
Origin and coherence of students’ conceptions

Several elements of this research supply some more general indications on the origin
and thought process of students’ conceptions.
The conceptions of students at a middle or higher educational level appear as a
mixture of spontaneous ideas generated by their daily life experiences in the physical
world and of ideas offered by teachers or, more generally, by their experience at
school.
Some elementary and ‘spontaneous’ explanatory schemes appear deep-rooted
and widely used in different contexts but they are progressively abandoned or put
aside when reaching the higher school levels. They are replaced by other more artic-
ulated and complex conceptions, combining some spontaneous ideas with the
suggestions and rules learned at school. This mixture appears as a personal re-inter-
pretation of school learning in the light of prior ideas, or a simple coupling of two
explanatory schemes, activated alternatively according to necessity. The spontane-
ous conceptions that turn out more resistant in time seem to be those that students
manage to coordinate with the rules learned at school. Moreover, the fact emerges
that some conceptions that are a source of error seem to be produced, suggested or
supported by teaching, which sometimes, for pedagogical simplifications or reason-
ing abbreviations, favours erroneous interpretations tied to ideas present among
students and teachers.
The more elementary and deep-rooted conceptions seem to have a considerable

local coherence and a persistent tenacity until the start of university. In some cases,
such coherence extends to different, even if similar, situations; in other cases,
students oscillate between two different conceptions according to situations or
within the same situation, according to the details of the given question. It seems
that a sort of multiple coherence exists; that is, the student conserves and applies more
than one explanatory model, while maintaining the logic of each one and also of
their choice criterion. This is not really too much different from what scientists and
teachers do when they use different descriptive and explanatory systems, according
to the specific situation or the aim of the problem in question, not always having
fully resolved the problems of coherence and differences in language between such
systems. Problems that students surely do not consider on a large scale but that are
not totally absent for them either.
Students show that they are ready to modify or abandon their own conception
when confronted with conflicting thoughts partially based on their own spontaneous
ideas and in coherence with their personal needs regarding the kinds of explanations
considered acceptable and effective.
References
AITKEN, F. and TOBAZÉOR, R. (1998). Une histoire de pression: la compressibilité des liquides.
Bulletin de la S.F.P., 114, 4–9.
ANDERSSON, B. and BACH, F. (1996). Developing new teaching sequences in science: the example
of ‘gases and their properties’. In G. Welford, J. Osborne and P. Scott (eds.) Research in
Science Education in Europe, Current Issues and Themes (London: The Falmer Press), 7–21.
ANDREANI DENTICI, O., GROSSI, M.G., BORGHI, L., DE AMBROSIS, A. and MASSARA, C.I. (1984).
Understanding floating: a study of children aged between six and eight years. European
Journal of Science Education, 6(3), 235–243.
BACHELARD, G. (1938). La formation de l’esprit scientifique (Paris: PUF).
BACHELARD, G. (1949). Le rationalisme appliqué (Paris: PUF).
BESSON, U. (1995). La pressione, La Fisica nella scuola, 28(1), 8–14.
BESSON, U. (2001). Une approche mésoscopique pour l’enseignement de la statique des fluides.
Étude des raisonnements des apprenants, élaboration et expérimentation d’une séquence
d’enseignement. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Paris 7 ‘Denis Diderot’.
BESSON, U. (2004). Some features of causal reasoning: common sense and physics teaching.
Research in Science and Technological Education, 22(1), 113–125.
BESSON, U. and VIENNOT, L. (2004). Using models at the mesoscopic scale in teaching physics:
two experimental interventions in solid friction and fluid statics. International Journal of
Science Education, 26(9), 1083–1110.
BESSON, U., LEGA, J. and VIENNOT, L. (2001). Using anchoring conceptions for teaching statics
of fluids. In R. Pinto and S. Surinach (eds.) Physics Teacher Education Beyond 2000, GIREP
International Conference, Selected Contributions (Paris: Elsevier Editions), 281–284.
BESSON, U., VIENNOT, L. and LEGA, J. (2003). A mesoscopic model of liquids for teaching fluid
statics. In D. Psillos et al. (eds.) Science Education Research in the Knowledge-Based Society
(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers), 221–229.
BORGHI, L., DE AMBROSIS, A., MASSARA, C.I., GROSSI, M.G. and ZOPPI, D. (1988). Knowledge
of air: a study of children aged between 6 and 8 years. International Journal of Science Educa-
tion, 10(2), 179–188.
BRIDGMAN, P.W. (1958). The Physics of High Pressure (London: G. Bell and Sons).
CLEMENT, J., BROWN, D. and ZIETSMAN, A. (1989). Not all preconceptions are misconceptions:
finding “anchoring conceptions” for grounding instruction on students’ intuitions, Interna-
tional Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 554–565.
DISESSA, A.A (1983). Phenomenology and the evolution of intuition. In D. Gentner and A.L.
Stevens (eds.) Mental Models (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 15–33.
1710 U. BESSON
DRIVER, R. (1989). Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of
Science Education, 11, 481–490.
ENGEL CLOUGH, E. and DRIVER, R. (1985). What do children understand about pressure in
fluids? Research in Science and Technological Education, 3, 133–144.
ENCYCLOPÉDIE QUILLET (1994). Mécanique des fluides, 219–229.
GIESE, P.A. (1987). Misconceptions about water pressure. In J. Novak (ed.) Proceedings of the
Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and
Mathematics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University), vol. 2, 143–148.
HAMMER, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of
Physics, 68(7), S52–S59.
KARIOTOGLOU, P. and PSILLOS, D. (1993). Pupils’ pressure models and their implications for
instruction. Research in Science and Technological Education, 11(1), 95–108.
KARIOTOGLOU, P., PSILLOS, D. and VALLASIADES, O. (1990). Understanding pressure: didactical
transposition and pupils’ conceptions. Physics Education, 25, 92–96.
MCCLOSKEY, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248, 114–122.
MULLET, E. and MONTCOUQUIOL, A. (1988). Archimedes’ effect, information integration and

individual differences. International Journal of Science Education, 10(3), 285–301.
PIAGET, J. and GARCIA, R. (1971). Les explications causales (Paris: PUF).
PIAGET, J. and GARCIA, R. (1983). Psychogenèse et histoire des sciences (Paris: PUF).
PIAGET, J. and INHELDER, B. (1955). De la logique de l’enfant à la logique de l’adolescent (Paris: PUF).
POSNER, G.J., STRIKE, K.A., HEWSON, P.W. and GERTZOG, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a
scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2),
211–227.
RESNICK, R., HALLIDAY, D. and KRANE, K.S. (2002). Physics (New York: Wiley).
ROZIER, S. (1988). Le raisonnement linéaire causal en thermodynamique classique élémentaire.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Paris 7 ‘Denis Diderot’.
ROZIER, S. and VIENNOT, L. (1991). Students’ reasoning in thermodynamics. International Journal
of Science Education, 13(2), 159–170.
SÉRÉ, M.G. (1982). A study of some frameworks used by pupils aged 11 to 13 years in the inter-
pretation of air pressure. European Journal of Science Education, 4(3), 299–309.
SÉRÉ, M.G. (1986). Children’s conceptions of gaseous state, prior to teaching. European Journal
of Science Education, 4, 413–425.
STACHEL, D. and STAVY, D. (1985). Children’s ideas about solid and liquid. European Journal of
Science Education, 4, 407–421.
STAVY, R. (1988). Children’s conception of gas. International Journal of Science Education, 5,
553–560.
TYTLER, R. (1992). Children’s explanations of air pressure generated by small group activities.
Research in Science Education, 22, 393–402.
TYTLER, R. (1998a). The nature of students’ informal science conceptions. International Journal of
Science Education, 20(8), 901–927.
TYTLER, R. (1998b). Children’s conceptions of air pressure: exploring the nature of conceptual
change. International Journal of Science Education, 20(8), 929–958.
VIENNOT, L., with the collaboration of Besson, U., Chauvet, F., Colin, P., Hirn-Chaine, C.,
Kaminski, W. and Rainson, S. (2002). Enseigner la physique (Bruxelles: De Boeck) [English
translation (2003). Teaching Physics (Dordrecht: Kluwer)].
Appendix 1: texts of the questions

Question 1. ‘Fish’
The question concerns the situation in figure 1.
The water pressure is:
Figure 1. The two fish.
(a) equal for the two fish

(b) greater for the fish in the cave
(c) greater for the fish in the open sea
Figure 1. The two fish.

Question 2. ‘Room’
One measures the air pressure inside a room (with an open window) and outside it,
in open air. One finds:
(a) the same pressure in two cases
(b) greater pressure inside the room
(c) greater pressure in the open air
Figure 2. The irregularly shaped container.
Question 3. ‘Irregularly shaped container’

The container in the figure is filled with water.
Is the pressure in S equal to, greater than, or less than the pressure in R?
Figure 2. The irregularly shaped container.
Figure 3. The three containers. The bottoms of the containers are equal.
1712 U. BESSON
Question 4. ‘The three containers’

The three containers in the figure are filled with water at the same level.
The force exerted by the water on the bottom of the container is:
Figure 3. The three containers. The bottoms of the containers are equal.
(a) equal in the three containers

(b) stronger in container A than in the others
(c) stronger in container B than in the others
(d) stronger in container C than in the others
Question 5. ‘Pressure force of liquids and atmospheric pressure’

A cylindrical container is filled with water.
If the container is moved to a place where the atmospheric pressure is weaker,

but gravity is the same, does the force exerted by the water on the bottom of the
container change or remain unchanged? Why?
Question 6. ‘Pressure force and weight’

A cylindrical container is filled with water.
Is the force exerted by the water on the bottom of the container equal to, greater
than, or smaller than the weight of the water?
(a) equal to the weight of water
(b) greater than the weight of water
(c) smaller than the weight of water
Question 7. ‘Interactions’
There are four types of fundamental interactions or forces: gravitational, electro-
magnetic, strong or weak. When deep underwater, in the sea or in a swimming pool,
one may feel some discomfort or pain in the ear because the water exerts upon the
eardrum a force which increases the deeper one goes. To which of the four funda-
mental types does this force belong?
(a) Gravitational
(b) electromagnetic
(c) strong
(d) weak
Questionnaire 8. ‘Ball in water’

A football is kept immersed in water (it is necessary to hold it down, otherwise it rises
to the surface). Four identical discs are drawn on it, at the top A, at the bottom B,
to the right C, to the left D (see figure 4).
Question 8a Does the water exert a force (if yes, indicate its direction by an arrow
on the figure)
on disc A ? yes no
Figure 4. Ball in water.
on disc B ? yes no
on disc C ? yes no
on disc D ? yes no
If you have answered ‘yes’ in at least two cases, say whether these forces have
Figure 4. Ball in water.
the same magnitude or list them in order of magnitude.
Question 8b Do these forces have anything to do with buoyancy?

Questionnaire 9. ‘The party balloon’
Figure 5. The party balloon.
A child holds a party balloon by a thread (it is necessary to hold it, otherwise it flies
away). Four identical discs are drawn on it, at the top A, at the bottom B, to the right
C, to the left D (see the figure).
Figure 5. The party balloon.
Question 9a Does the air exert a force (if yes, indicate its direction by an arrow on
the figure)
on disc A ? yes no
on disc B ? yes no
on disc C ? yes no
on disc D ? yes no
If you have answered ‘yes’ in at least two cases, say whether these forces have
the same magnitude or list them in order of magnitude.
1714 STUDENTS’ CONCEPTIONS OF FLUIDS
Question 9b. Do these forces have anything to do with buoyancy?

Question 10. ‘Water-filled syringe’
A syringe is filled with water and closed at the open end.
If one pushes on the piston, does the water pressure in the syringe increase,
decrease or remain unchanged? And does the water volume increase, decrease or
remain unchanged?
Question 11. ‘Air-filled syringe’

A syringe is closed at the open end.
If one pushes on the piston, does the air pressure in the syringe increase,
decrease or remain unchanged? And does the air volume in the syringe increase,
decrease or remain unchanged?

Ideas Previas de Los Estudiantes Sobre Fluidos

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Ideas Previas de Los Estudiantes Sobre Fluidos

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]

On: 24 November 2014, At: 17:03

International Journal of Science

Students' conceptions of fluids

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000243745

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Students’ conceptions of fluids

Ugo Besson, L.D.S.P. University of Paris ‘Denis Diderot’, Paris 7, France;

He illustrated this concept with fluid statics:

According to Piaget and Garcia, on the contrary:

A topography of the more common conceptions is now available. Similar concep-

Some results of previous research

years) and identifies nine explanatory conceptions or ‘interpretive frameworks’:

∫∫s pndS = − ∫∫∫v µg ⋅ dV ( 2)

Objectives and methods of this research

What students think about pressure in fluids

Table 1. Results of question 1, ‘Fish’: to compare water pressure in a

Equal Greater in the cave Greater in open sea Total answers

Pupils aged 14–18 years 20% 45% 36% 229

Table 2. Results of question 2, ‘Room’: to compare air pressure inside a

Pupils aged 14–18 years 28% 52% 19% 229

In a smaller place, the water is more compressed.

Table 3. Question 3, ‘Irregularly shaped container’: to compare the

Secondary school pupils 38% 33% 29% 117

Pressure forces, weight and hydrostatic paradox

Table 4. Question 4, ‘The three containers’: to compare the forces exerted

Stronger in Stronger in Stronger in Weaker in

Secondary school pupils 14% 0.7% 20% 60% 5% 141

In the more narrow bowl water is more compressed.

On the coherence of pupils’ conceptions

Pressure forces acting on an object immersed in water or in air

(a), (b) Correct answer or F(B) > F(A); F(C) = F(D) 18 17 90 43

(a), (b) Correct answer or F(B) > F(A); F(C) = F(D) 12 12 12 29

(h) F(B) > F(D) = F(C) 13 13 0 0

How students coordinate different concepts and situations

Table 7. Question 5, ‘Pressure forces of liquids and atmospheric

Secondary school pupils 53% 36% 11% 111 12

of pupils and 42% of students, with justifications of the sort:

Pressure forces and buoyant force

A finer analysis of justifications given by every student, taking into consideration

Table 8. Question 8b, ‘Ball in water’: do water pressure forces have

(a), (b) Has nothing to do with this, it is another force which 8 11 47 31

Question 8a: Forces have the same intensity.

(a) Has nothing to do with this 32 49

Some general tendencies of students’ reasoning

… because it is a phenomenon linked to weight force, and so to the attraction exerted by

The force exerted is weight.

Displacement or delocalization of forces

Global description and local reasoning

Answering question 8b about the buoyant force, several students seem to be

How do students imagine the mechanical behaviour of liquids and

(a) p↑ V↓ 26% 26%

Internal and external variations: are liquids compressible?

(a) p↑ V↓ 64% 78%

Conclusions: common reasoning and teaching

Use and misuse of formulas

Two different descriptions of fluids in teaching physics

swimming pool, a lake, the sea, a container or in a U tube.

Two categories of students’ conceptions on fluids

him/her, activating an anthropomorphic intuition. The ‘just weight’ conception is a

Local actions and global effects

The small and the zero, to calculate and to understand

Formulas and mechanism