- 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

Substance-based and sequential reasoning about current: An example from a bulb-ranking task using a resources theoretical lens

Lauren C. Bauman1, Trà Huỳnh2, and Amy D. Robertson3

  • 1Department of Physics, University of Washington, Box 351560, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA
  • 2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington 98225, USA
  • 3Department of Physics, Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, Washington 98119, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010124 – Published 12 April, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010124

Abstract

Literature on student ideas about circuits largely focuses on misunderstandings and difficulties, with seminal papers framing student thinking as stable, difficult to change, and connected to incorrect ontological categorizations of current as a thing rather than a process. In this paper, we analyzed 417 student responses to a conceptual question about electric circuits using a lens consistent with resources theory. We found that though indicators of substance-based reasoning about current are common in student responses, this reasoning is not predictive of other difficulties reported in the literature, such as “current is consumed” or “the battery is a constant source of current.” We also found that students use substance-based reasoning in resourceful ways, suggesting that substance-based reasoning may in fact be a productive starting place for instruction on circuits.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (51)

  1. L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755 (1999).
  2. J. L. Docktor and J. P. Mestre, Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020119 (2014).
  3. L. Shulman, Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform, Harv. Educ. Rev. 57, 1 (1987).
  4. L. C. McDermott, Millikan lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned—closing the gap, Am. J. Phys. 59, 301 (1991).
  5. L. C. McDermott, Oersted medal lecture 2001: “Physics education research—the key to student learning”, Am. J. Phys. 69, 1127 (2001).
  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. P. V. Engelhardt and R. J. Beichner, Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits, Am. J. Phys. 72, 98 (2003).
  8. T. V. Goris, Common misunderstandings of electricity: Analysis of interview-responses of electrical engineering technology students, Int. J. Eng. Pedagogy IJEP 6, 4 (2016).
  9. L. C. McDermott and P. S. 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).
  10. D. M. Shipstone, A study of children’s understanding of electricity in simple dc circuits, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 6, 185 (1984).
  11. S. Cepni and E. Keleş, Turkish students’ conceptions about the simple electric circuits, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 4, 269 (2006).
  12. A. T. Borges and J. K. Gilbert, Mental models of electricity, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 21, 95 (1999).
  13. P. M. Heller and F. N. Finley, Variable uses of alternative conceptions: A case study in current electricity, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 29, 259 (1992).
  14. A. Leniz, K. Zuza, and J. Guisasola, Difficulties understanding the explicative model of simple dc circuits in introductory physics courses, presented at PER Conf. 2014, Minneapolis, MN, 10.1119/perc.2014.pr.034.
  15. 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. Educ. 10, 303 (1988).
  16. D. Smith and P. van Kampen, Teaching electric circuits with multiple batteries: A qualitative approach, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 020115 (2011).
  17. S. Bull, T. J. Jackson, and M. J. Lancaster, Students’ interest in their misconceptions in first-year electrical circuits and mathematics courses, Int. J. Electr. Eng. Educ. 47, 307 (2010).
  18. C.-H. Tsai, H.-Y. Chen, C.-Y. Chou, and K.-D. Lain, Current as the key concept of Taiwanese students’ understandings of electric circuits, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 29, 483 (2007).
  19. T. O. B. Odden and R. S. Russ, “Charges are everywhere”: A case of student sensemaking about electric current, presented at PER Conf. 2017, Cinncinnati, OH, 10.1119/perc.2017.pr.065.
  20. M. Cosgrove, A study of science-in-the making as students generate an analogy for electricity, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 17, 295 (1995).
  21. J.-P. Burde and T. Wilhelm, Teaching electric circuits with a focus on potential differences, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020153 (2020).
  22. M. Reiner, J. D. Slotta, M. T. H. Chi, and L. B. Resnick, Naive physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-based conceptions, Cognit. Instr. 18, 1 (2000).
  23. J.-L. Closset, Sequential reasoning in electricity, in Proceedings of the First International Workshop (Editions du Centre National de Recherche Scientifique, Paris, 1983).
  24. M. T. H. Chi, Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust, J. Learn. Sci. 14, 161 (2005).
  25. M. Chi, Conceptual change within, and across ontological categories: Examples from learning, and discovery in science, in Cognitive Models of Science, edited by R. Giere and H. Feigl (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, 1992), Vol. 15, pp. 129–186.
  26. M. T. H. Chi and J. D. Slotta, The ontological coherence of intuitive physics, Cognit. Instr. 10, 249 (1993).
  27. M. T. H. Chi, J. D. Slotta, and N. de Leeuw, From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts, Learn. Instr. 4, 27 (1994).
  28. J. D. Slotta and M. T. H. Chi, Helping students understand challenging topics in science through ontology training, Cognit. Instr. 24, 261 (2006).
  29. J. D. Slotta, M. T. H. Chi, and E. Joram, Assessing students’ misclassifications of physics concepts: An ontological basis for conceptual change, Cognit. Instr. 13, 373 (1995).
  30. J. R. Hoehn and N. D. Finkelstein, Students’ flexible use of ontologies and the value of tentative reasoning: Examples of conceptual understanding in three canonical topics of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010122 (2018).
  31. A. Gupta, D. Hammer, and E. F. Redish, The case for dynamic models of learners’ ontologies in physics, J. Learn. Sci. 19, 285 (2010).
  32. A. Gupta, A. Elby, and L. D. Conlin, How substance-based ontologies for gravity can be productive: A case study, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010113 (2014).
  33. R. E. Scherr, H. G. Close, S. B. McKagan, and S. Vokos, Representing energy. I. Representing a substance ontology for energy, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020114 (2012).
  34. D. T. Brookes and E. Etkina, “Force,” ontology, and language, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010110 (2009).
  35. A. D. Robertson and L. J. Atkins Elliott, Truth, success, and faith: Novice teachers’ perceptions of what’s at risk in responsive teaching in science, Sci. Educ. 104, 736 (2020).
  36. D. Hammer, Student resources for learning introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 68, S52 (2000).
  37. D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. E. Scherr, and E. F. Redish, Resources, framing, and transfer, in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective (IAP, Greenwhich, CT, 2005), pp. 89–119.
  38. J. P. Smith, A. A. diSessa, and J. Roschelle, Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition, J. Learn. Sci. 3, 115 (1993).
  39. L. M. Goodhew, A. D. Robertson, P. R. L. Heron, and R. E. Scherr, Students’ context-sensitive use of conceptual resources: A pattern across different styles of question about mechanical waves, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010137 (2021).
  40. Lillian C. McDermott, Peter S. Shaffer, and Physics Education Group, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Pearson College Div., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).
  41. R. J. Beichner, SCALE-UP, https://www.physport.org/methods/method.cfm?G=SCALE_UP.
  42. R. Mondesir and A. D. Robertson, Toward characterizing the demographics of introductory physics courses, presented at PER Conf. 2020, virtual conference, 10.1119/perc.2020.pr.Mondesir.
  43. P. Mulvey (private communication).
  44. S. Kanim and X. C. Cid, Demographics of physics education research, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020106 (2020).
  45. M. Banerjee, M. Capozzoli, L. McSweeney, and D. Sinha, Beyond kappa: A review of interrater agreement measures, Can. J. Stat. Rev. Can. Stat. 27, 3 (1999).
  46. G. J. Posner, K. A. Strike, P. W. Hewson, and W. A. Gertzog, Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change, Sci. Educ. 66, 211 (1982).
  47. M. McCloskey, Intuitive physics, Sci. Am. 248, No. 4, 122 (1983).
  48. R. E. Scherr, Modeling student thinking: An example from special relativity, Am. J. Phys. 75, 272 (2007).
  49. Native Life & Tribal Relations, https://www.washington.edu/diversity/tribal-relations/.
  50. Tribal Lands Statement, https://www.wwu.edu/tribal-lands-statement.
  51. Acknowledging the Coast Salish Peoples, https://spu.edu/diversity/spu-diversity-commitment/oiex-land-page.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010124– Published 12 April, 2024
  • Received 13 October 2022
  • Revised 3 October 2023
  • Accepted 10 January 2024
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