- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Teaching electric circuits with a focus on potential differences

Jan-Philipp Burde*

Thomas Wilhelm

  • University of Tübingen, Department of Physics Education Research, Auf der Morgenstelle 14, 72076 Tübingen, Germany

  • Goethe University, Department of Physics Education Research, Max-von-Laue-Str.1, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

  • *Jan-Philipp.Burde@uni-tuebingen.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020153 – Published 4 December, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020153

Abstract

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Curriculum Development: Theory into Design.] Developing a solid understanding of simple electric circuits represents a major challenge to most students in middle school. In particular, students tend to reason exclusively with current and resistance when analyzing electric circuits as they view voltage as a property of the electric current and not an independent physical quantity. As a result, they often struggle to understand the important relationship between voltage and current in electric circuits. Following diSessa’s interpretation of learning as the construction and reorganization of previously loosely connected elements of knowledge (“p-prims”) into a coherent mental structure (“coordination class”), a new curriculum was developed that systematically builds on students’ everyday experiences with air pressure (e.g., with air mattresses and bicycle tires). In order to make voltage rather than current the students’ primary concept when analyzing electric circuits, voltage is introduced as an “electric pressure difference” across a resistor that is as much the cause for an electric current as air pressure differences are the cause for air flow. The objective of the curriculum is to provide a structure for students to develop a qualitative understanding of simple dc circuits that allows them to make intuitive inferences about the electric current based on voltage and resistance. With an effect size of d=0.94 the new curriculum has proven to be more effective than traditional approaches for teaching electric circuits in a quasi-experimental field study with 790 students from Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Collections

This article appears in the following collection:

Curriculum Development: Theory into Design

A special collection on theory and design of curriculum.

Article Text

References (81)

  1. D. M. Shipstone, C. v. Rhöneck, W. Jung, C. Kärrqvist, J.-J. Dupin, S. Johsua, and P. Licht, A study of students’ understanding of electricity in five European countries, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 10, 303 (1988).
  2. Aspects of Understanding Electricity—Proceedings of an International Workshop, edited by R. Duit, W. Jung, and C. v. Rhöneck (Schmidt & Klaunig, Kiel, 1985).
  3. P. Shaffer and L. McDermott, Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part II: Design of instructional strategies, Am. J. Phys. 60, 1003 (1992).
  4. R. Duit, Bibliography—stcse students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education (2009), http://archiv.ipn.uni-kiel.de/stcse/.
  5. L. McDermott and P. Shaffer, Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student understanding, Am. J. Phys. 60, 994 (1992).
  6. R. Cohen, B. Eylon, and U. Ganiel, Potential difference and current in simple electric circuits: A study of students’ concepts, Am. J. Phys. 51, 407 (1983).
  7. D. M. Shipstone, A study of children’s understanding of electricity in simple DC circuits, Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 6, 185 (1984).
  8. J. Guisasola, International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (Springer, Dordrecht, 2014) Chap. 5, pp. 129–156.
  9. L. Viennot, Reasoning in Physics. The Part of Common Sense (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2001).
  10. A. Tiberghien, Critical review of the research aimed at elucidating the sense that the notions of electric circuits have for students aged 8 to 20 years, in Research on Physics Education: Proceedings of the First International Workshop, edited by J. S. G. Delacote and A. Tiberghien (CNRS, Paris, 1983), pp. 109–123.
  11. C. v. Rhöneck, Vorstellungen vom elektrischen Stromkreis und zu den Begriffen Strom, Spannung und Widerstand, NiU-Physik 34, 10 (1986).
  12. U. Maichle, Schülervorstellungen zu Stromstärke und Spannung, NiU-Physik/Chemie 30, 383 (1982).
  13. D. P. Smith and P. van Kampen, Teaching electric circuits with multiple batteries: A qualitative approach, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 020115 (2011).
  14. J. L. Closset, Sequential reasoning in electricity, in Research on Physics Education: Proceedings of the First International Workshop, edited by J. S. G. Delacote and A. Tiberghien (CNRS, Paris, 1983), pp. 313–319.
  15. J. Möller and M. Jerusalem, Attributionsforschung in der Schule, Z. Pädagog. Psychol. 11, 151 (1997).
  16. L. Hoffmann, P. Häußler, and S. Peters-Haft, An den Interessen von Jungen und Mädchen orientierter Physikunterricht (IPN, Kiel, 1997).
  17. M. Heald, Electric fields and charges in elementary circuits, Am. J. Phys. 52, 522 (1984).
  18. W. R. Moreau, S. G. Ryan, S. J. Beuzenberg, and R. W. G. Syme, Charge density in circuits, Am. J. Phys. 53, 552 (1985).
  19. S. M. Stocklmayer and D. F. Treagust, A historical analysis of electric currents in textbooks: A century of influence on physics education, Sci. Educ. 3, 131 (1994).
  20. B. Eylon and U. Ganiel, Macro-micro relationships: The missing link between electrostatics and electrodynamics in students’ reasoning, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 12, 79 (1990).
  21. H. Härtel, The electric voltage: What do students understand? What can be done to help for a better understanding?, in Aspects of Understanding Electricity—Proceedings of an International Workshop, edited by R. Duit, W. Jung, and C. v. Rhöneck (Schmidt & Klaunig, Kiel, 1985).
  22. D. Psillos, A. Tiberghien, and P. Koumaras, Voltage presented as a primary concept in an introductory teaching sequence on dc circuits, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 10, 29 (1988).
  23. P. Licht, Teaching electrical energy, voltage and current: an alternative approach, Phys. Educ. 26, 272 (1991).
  24. R. W. Chabay and B. A. Sherwood, Matter & Interactions (Wiley, Hoboken, NY, 2011).
  25. P. Sengupta and U. Wilensky, Learning electricity with Niels: Thinking with electrons and thinking in levels, Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn. 14, 21 (2009).
  26. A. A. diSessa, International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (Routledge, New York, 2013).
  27. E. Jochmann, O. Hermes, and P. Spies, Grundriss der Experimentalphysik und Elemente der Chemie sowie der Astronomie und mathematischen Geographie (Winkelmann & Söhne, Berlin, 1914).
  28. C. Gleixner, Einleuchtende Elektrizitätslehre mit Potenzial, Ph.D. thesis, LMU München, 1998.
  29. C. v. Rhöneck, Wege zum Spannungsbegriff, NiU-Physik/Chemie 36, 4 (1988).
  30. H. Muckenfuß and A. Walz, Neue Wege im Elektrikunterricht (Aulis Deubner, Köln, 1997).
  31. U. Maichle, Representations of knowledge in basic electricity and its use for problem solving, in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Problems Concerning Students’ Representation of Physics and Chemistry Knowledge, edited by W. Jung, H. Pfundt, and C. Rhöneck (Pädagogische Hochschule, Ludwigsburg, 1981), pp. 174–193.
  32. F. Herrmann and P. Schmälzle, Das elektrische Potential im Unterricht der Sekundarstufe I, MNU 37, 476 (1984).
  33. H. Härtel, Spannung und Oberflächenladungen - Was Wilhelm Weber schon vor mehr als 150 Jahren wusste, PdN-PidS 61, 25 (2012).
  34. J. J. Clement and M. S. Steinberg, Step-wise evolution of mental models of electric circuits: A “Learning-Aloud” case study, J. Learn. Sci. 11, 389 (2002).
  35. P. Sarantopoulos, G. Tsaparlis, and A. Strong, Analogies in chemistry teaching as a means of attainment of cognitive and affective objectives: A longitudinal study in a naturalistic setting, using analogies with a strong social content, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 5, 33 (2004).
  36. G. Ohm, Die Galvanische Kette, Mathematisch Bearbeitet (Riemann, Berlin, 1827).
  37. R. Duit, W. Roth, M. Komorek, and J. Wilbers, Fostering conceptual change by analogies—between Scylla and Charybdis, Learn. Instr. 11, 283 (2001).
  38. D. Gentner, Structure‐mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy, Cogn. Sci. 7, 155 (1983).
  39. J. J. Clement and D. Brown, Creative Model Construction in Scientists and Students: The Role of Imagery, Analogy, and Mental Simulation (Springer, Dordrecht, 2008).
  40. A. Harrison and D. Treagust, Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education. Science & Technology Education Library (Springer, Dordrecht, 2006).
  41. S. Kapon and A. diSessa, Reasoning through instructional analogies, Cognit. Instr. 30, 261 (2012).
  42. J.-P. Burde and T. Wilhelm, Moment mal... (22) Hilft die Wasserkreislaufanalogie?, PdN-Physik 65, 46 (2016).
  43. H. Schwedes, W.-G. Dudeck, and C. Seibel, Elektrizitätslehre mit Wassermodellen, PdN-Physik 44, 28 (1995).
  44. M. S. Steinberg and C. L. Wainwright, Using models to teach electricity—The CASTLE project, Phys. Teach. 31, 353 (1993).
  45. C. Waltner, S. Späth, D. Koller, and H. Wiesner, Einführung von stromstärke und spannung—ein unterrichtskonzept und ergebnisse einer vergleichsstudie, in Entwicklung naturwissenschaftlichen Denkens zwischen Phänomenen und Systematik. Jahrestagung der GDCP in Dresden 2009, Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Chemie und Physik No. 30, edited by D. Höttecke GDCP (Lit-Verlag, Münster, 2009), pp. 182–184.
  46. M. S. Steinberg, Electricity visualized—The CASTLE project. Student Manual (PASCO Scientific, Rosevill, CA, 2004).
  47. J.-P. Burde, Konzeption und Evaluation eines Unterrichtskonzepts zu einfachen Stromkreisen auf Basis des Elektronengasmodells (Logos-Verlag, Berlin, 2018).
  48. A. A. diSessa, Conceptual change in a microcosm: Comparative learning analysis of a learning event, Hum. Dev. 60, 1 (2017).
  49. G. J. Wiener, S. M. Schmeling, and M. Hopf, The technique of probing acceptance as a tool for teachers’ professional development: A pck study, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 55, 849 (2018).
  50. W. Jung, Representations of knowledge in basic electricity and its use for problem solving, in Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies, edited by R. Duit, F. Goldberg, and H. Niedderer (IPN, Kiel, 1992), pp. 278–295.
  51. J.-P. Burde and T. Wilhelm, The electron gas model as an introduction to electricity in middle school science, in Science Education Research: Engaging Learners for a Sustainable Future, Proceedings of ESERA 2015, edited by J. Lavonen, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, A. Uitto, and K. Hahl (University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, 2016), pp. 26–36.
  52. W. A. Sandoval and P. Bell, Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction, Educ. Psychol. 39, 199 (2004).
  53. A. Collins, D. Joseph, and K. Bielaczyc, Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues, J. Learn. Sci. 13, 15 (2004).
  54. C. Bereiter, Design research for sustained innovation, Cognitive Studies, Bull. Japanese Cogn. Sci. Soc. 9, 321 (2002).
  55. A. L. Brown, Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings, J. Learn. Sci. 2, 141 (1992).
  56. E. C. Lagemann, An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Education Research (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2002).
  57. S. Barab and K. Squire, Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground, J. Learn. Sci. 13, 1 (2004).
  58. A. Collins, Toward a design science of education, in New directions in educational technology, edited by E. Scanlon and T. O’Shea (Springer, New York, NY, 1992), pp. 15–22.
  59. P. Cobb, J. Confrey, A. diSessa, R. Lehrer, and L. Schauble, Design experiments in educational research, Educ. Res. 32, 9 (2003).
  60. D.-B. R. Collective, Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry, Educ. Res. 32, 5 (2003).
  61. A. A. diSessa, Constructivism in the Computer Age (Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988).
  62. S. Vosniadou and W. F. Brewer, Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood, Cogn. Psychol. 24, 535 (1992).
  63. S. Vosniadou and I. Skopeliti, Conceptual change from the framework theory side of the fence, Sci. Educ. 23, 1427 (2014).
  64. Mental Models, edited by D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983).
  65. M. McCloskey, Mental Models (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983).
  66. A. A. diSessa, Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognit. Instr. 10, 105 (1993).
  67. A. A. diSessa, B. L. Sherin, and M. Levin, Knowledge and Interaction: A Synthetic Agenda for the Learning Sciences (Routledge, New York, 2016).
  68. A. A. diSessa and B. L. Sherin, What changes in conceptual change?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 1155 (1998).
  69. A. diSessa, Why conceptual ecology is a good idea, in Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice, edited by M. Limón and L. Mason (Springer, Dordrecht, 2002), pp. 28–60.
  70. A. A. diSessa, Invited Lectures from the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education. ICME-13 Monographs (Springer, Cham, 2018).
  71. M. S. Steinberg, Inventing electric potential, Found. Sci. 13, 163 (2008).
  72. I. Garzón, M. D. Cock, K. Zuza, P. V. Kampen, and J. Guisasola, Probing university students’ understanding of electromotive force in electricity, Am. J. Phys. 82, 72 (2014).
  73. E. Mosca and M. D. Jong, Implications of using the castle model, Phys. Teach. 31, 357 (1993).
  74. M. Chi, J. Slotta, and N. de Leeuw, From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts, Learn. Instr. 4, 27 (1994).
  75. M. Chi, Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust, J. Learn. Sci. 14, 161 (2005).
  76. M. Chi, Two kinds and four sub-types of misconceived knowledge, ways to change it, and the learning outcomes, in International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, edited by S. Vosniadou (Routledge, New York, NY, 2013), pp. 49–70.
  77. T. Wilhelm, Konzeption und Evaluation eines Kinematik/Dynamik-Lehrgangs zur Veränderung von Schülervorstellungen mit Hilfe dynamisch ikonischer Repräsentationen und graphischer Modellbildung (Logos, Berlin, 2005).
  78. H. Urban-Woldron and M. Hopf, Entwicklung eines Testinstruments zum Verständnis in der Elektrizitätslehre, ZfDN 18, 201 (2012).
  79. P. Engelhardt and R. Beichner, Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits, Am. J. Phys. 72, 98 (2004).
  80. A. Leniz, K. Zuza, and J. Guisasola, Students’ reasoning when tackling electric field and potential in explanation of dc resistive circuits, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010128 (2017).
  81. www.einfache-elehre.de.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020153– Published 4 December, 2020
  • Received 7 July 2019
  • Accepted 19 December 2019
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation