Studies of student understanding of simple electric dc circuits have shown that many of them find it very difficult to apply qualitative reasoning to explain the observed phenomena. It has been suggested that these difficulties may be due to their failure to construct models of microscopic processes that lead to these phenomena. Indeed, in the traditional courses, such models have generally not been emphasized. In the present study, we compared the performance of different groups of university students in answering a questionnaire designed to probe their understanding of the relationship between macroscopic phenomena of transients in a dc circuit and the microscopic processes that can explain these phenomena. One group studied from a traditional text, the second group used a recently developed text that emphasizes models of microscopic processes. We also conducted detailed interviews with some of the students. From an analysis of the performance of these two groups, and also from a comparison with a previous study on Israeli high school students, we found that most of the students whose instructional experiences included an emphasis on the development of models of microscopic processes developed a better understanding of the transient phenomena studied. They applied qualitative considerations in their analyses and were able to develop coherent models to describe their observations. Overall, they demonstrated a superior understanding of the physical phenomena.

1.
(a)
D.
Hestenes
,
M.
Wells
, and
G.
Swackhammer
, “
Force Concept Inventory
,”
Phys. Teach.
30
,
141
158
(
1992
);
(b)
D.
Hestenes
and
M.
Wells
, “
A Mechanics Baseline Test
,”
Phys. Teach.
30
,
159
166
(
1992
).
2.
Ronald K.
Thornton
and
David R.
Sokoloff
, “
Assessing Student Learning of Newton’s Laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula
,”
Am. J. Phys.
4
,
338
352
(
1998
).
3.
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
412
(
1983
).
4.
M. H.
Fredette
and
J. J.
Clement
, “
Student Misconceptions of an Electric Circuit: What Do They mean?
J. College Sci. Teach.
10
,
280
285
(
1981
).
5.
J.
Evans
, “
Teaching Electricity with Batteries and Bulbs
,”
Phys. Teach.
16
,
15
22
(
1978
).
6.
J. L. Closset, “Sequential Reasoning in Electricity,” in Research in Physics Education: Proceedings of the First international Workshop (Editions du CNRS, Paris, 1983), pp. 313–319.
7.
J. J.
Dupin
and
S.
Joshua
, “
Conceptions of French Pupils Concerning Electric Circuits: Structure and Evolution
,”
J. Res. Sci. Teach.
6
,
791
806
(
1987
).
8.
R. Gott, “Predicting and Explaining the Operation of Simple dc Circuits,” in Aspects of understanding Electricity: Proceedings of an International Workshop (Ludwigsburg, IPN, Kiel, 1984), pp. 63–72.
9.
H.
Härtel
, “
The Electric Circuit as a System: A New Approach
,”
Eur. J. Sci. Educ.
4
,
45
55
(
1982
).
10.
R.
Osborne
, “
Children’s Ideas About Electric Circuits
,”
New Zealand Sci. Teach.
29
,
12
19
(
1981
).
11.
D. M.
Shipstone
, “
A Study of Children’s Understanding of Electricity in Simple dc Circuits
,”
Eur. J. Sci. Educ.
6
,
185
198
(
1984
).
12.
D.
Psillos
,
P.
Koumaras
, and
A.
Tiberghien
, “
Voltage Presented as a Primary Concept in an Introductory Teaching Sequence on dc Circuits
,”
Int. J. Sci. Educ.
10
,
29
43
(
1988
).
13.
B. S.
Eylon
and
U.
Ganiel
, “
Macro-Micro Relationships: The Missing Link Between Electrostatics and Electrodynamics in Students’ Reasoning
,”
Int. J. Sci. Educ.
12
,
79
94
(
1990
).
14.
(a)
L. C.
McDermott
and
P. S.
Shaffer
, “
Research as a Guide for Curriculum Development: An Example from Introductory Electricity. I. Investigation of Student Understanding
,”
Am. J. Phys.
60
,
994
1003
(
1992
);
L. C.
McDermott
and
P. S.
Shaffer
,
Am. J. Phys.
Erratum:
61
,
81
(
1993
);
(b)
P. S.
Shaffer
and
L. C.
McDermott
, “
Research as a Guide for Curriculum Development: An Example from Introductory Electricity. II. Design of an Instructional Strategy
,”
Am. J. Phys.
60
,
1003
1013
(
1992
).
15.
Melvin S. Steinberg et al., “Electricity Visualized—the CASTLE Project,” PASCO Scientific, Roseville, CA, 1995.
16.
Melvin S.
Steinberg
and
Camille L.
Wainwright
, “
Using Models to Teach Electricity—The CASTLE Project
,”
Phys. Teach.
31
,
353
357
(
1993
).
17.
(a) Curtis Hieggelke, “1997 Conceptual Survey in Electricity (CSE)” (private communication, Joliet Junior College, Joliet, IL 60431);
(b) Jeffrey D. Marx, “Diagnostic Exam for an Undergraduate, Introductory Electricity and Magnetism Class” (private communication, Rensselear Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180).
18.
Ruth Chabay and Bruce Sherwood, Electric and Magnetic Interactions (Wiley, New York, 1995).
19.
David Halliday and Robert Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics (Wiley, New York, 1986), 2nd ed.
20.
The Physics Group, Department of Science Teaching, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel.
This content is only available via PDF.
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.