One class of grade 7 was chosen as a control group, and the other as an experimental group. The control group watched only a film of motion in weightless situation, but the experimental group had a contrastive discussion before watching the film. In pretest, pupils were given contrasted views between the pre-Galilean and post-Galilean about falling and horizontal motion of bodies, and asked to choose one from two points of view and to write the reason why they choose it. After the pretest, control group students watched the same film as the experimental group did. On the falling problem, the control group ignored the contents of the film or regarded related contents as not related contents. However, through the contrastive discussion, experimental group pupils reconstructed their past vague ideas and noticed the cause of falling which was not perceived by the control group. On the horizontal motion, some in the control group agreed with post-Galilean view points after watching the film. Some of the pupils in the experimental group agreed with the post-Galilean viewpoint after performing the contrastive discussion. However, most of them agreed after watching the film. So we can conclude that the contrastive discussion which helped students to reconstruct their ideas made the difference between the two groups.