Students in an introductory university physics course were found to share many substantial difficulties related to learning fundamental topics in thermal physics. Responses to written questions by 653 students in three separate courses were consistent with the results of detailed individual interviews with 32 students in a fourth course. Although most students seemed to acquire a reasonable grasp of the state-function concept, it was found that there was a widespread and persistent tendency to improperly over-generalize this concept to apply to both work and heat. A large majority of interviewed students thought that net work done or net heat absorbed by a system undergoing a cyclic process must be zero, and only 20% or fewer were able to make effective use of the first law of thermodynamics even after instruction. Students’ difficulties seemed to stem in part from the fact that heat, work, and internal energy share the same units. The results were consistent with those of previously published studies of students in the U.S. and Europe, but portray a pervasiveness of confusion regarding process-dependent quantities that has been previously unreported. Significant enhancements of current standard instruction may be required for students to master basic thermodynamic concepts.
REFERENCES
1.
A brief, annotated bibliography is in
Lillian C.
McDermott
and Edward F.
Redish
, “Resource Letter: PER-1: Physics Education Research
,” Am. J. Phys.
67
, 755
–767
(1999
), Sec. IV A 4.A bibliography of more than 200 items can be found at 〈http://www.physics.iastate.edu/per/index.html〉.
2.
Michael
Shayer
and Hugh
Wylam
, “The development of the concepts of heat and temperature in 10–13 year olds
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
18
, 419
–434
(1981
).3.
Sofia
Kesidou
and Reinders
Duit
, “Students’ conceptions of the second law of thermodynamics—an interpretive study
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
30
, 85
–106
(1993
).4.
Sofia Kesidou, Reinders Duit, and Shawn M. Glynn, “Conceptual development in physics: Students’ understanding of heat,” in Learning Science in the Schools: Research Reforming Practice, edited by Shawn M. Glynn and Reinders Duit (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1995), pp. 179–198, and references therein.
5.
Gaalen Erickson and Andrée Tiberghien, “Heat and temperature. Part A: An overview of pupils’ ideas; Part B: The development of ideas with teaching,” in Children’s Ideas in Science, edited by Rosalind Driver, Edith Guesne, and Andrée Tiberghien (Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 1985), pp. 53–84, and references therein.
6.
Arnold B. Arons, Teaching Introductory Physics (Wiley, New York, 1997), Part I, p. 139;
Randall D. Knight, Five Easy Lessons: Strategies for Successful Physics Teaching (Addison-Wesley, San Francisco, 2002), pp. 167–169.
7.
Shelley
Yeo
and Marjan
Zadnik
, “Introductory thermal concept evaluation: Assessing students’ understanding
,” Phys. Teach.
39
, 496
–504
(2001
);Paul G.
Jasien
and Graham E.
Oberem
, “Understanding of elementary concepts in heat and temperature among college students and K–12 teachers
,” J. Chem. Educ.
79
, 889
–895
(2002
).8.
T. R.
Shultz
and M.
Coddington
, “Development of the concepts of energy conservation and entropy
,” J. Exp. Child Psych.
31
, 131
–153
(1981
);Reinders
Duit
and Sofia
Kesidou
, “Students’ understanding of basic ideas of the second law of thermodynamics
,” Res. Sci. Educ.
18
, 186
–195
(1988
);Ruth
Ben-Zvi
, “Non-science oriented students and the second law of thermodynamics
,” Int. J. Sci. Educ.
21
, 1251
–1267
(1999
).9.
J. F. Cullen, Jr., “Concept learning and problem solving: The use of the entropy concept in college chemistry,” Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, UMI, Ann Arbor, MI, 1983, UMI #8321833.
10.
M. F.
Granville
, “Student misconceptions in thermodynamics
,” J. Chem. Educ.
62
, 847
–848
(1985
);H.
Beall
, “Probing student misconceptions in thermodynamics with in-class writing
,” J. Chem. Educ.
71
, 1056
–1057
(1994
).11.
Walter H.
Kaper
and Martin J.
Goedhart
, “‘Forms of energy,’ an intermediary language on the road to thermodynamics? Part II
,” Int. J. Sci. Educ.
24
, 119
–137
(2002
).12.
P. H.
van Roon
, H. F.
van Sprang
, and A. H.
Verdonk
, “‘Work’ and ‘heat’: on the road towards thermodynamics
,” Int. J. Sci. Educ.
16
, 131
–144
(1994
).13.
A. C.
Banerjee
, “Teaching chemical equilibrium and thermodynamics to undergraduate general chemistry classes
,” J. Chem. Educ.
72
, 879
–887
(1995
);Roger
Barlet
and Géraldine
Mastrot
, “L’algorithmisation-refuge, obstacle à la conceptualisation; L’exemple de la thermochimie en cycle universitaire
,” Didaskalia
17
, 123
–159
(2000
).14.
P. L.
Thomas
and R. W.
Schwenz
, “College physical chemistry students’ conceptions of equilibrium and fundamental thermodynamics
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
35
, 1151
–1160
(1998
);Peter Lynn Thomas, “Student conceptions of equilibrium and fundamental thermodynamic concepts in college physical chemistry,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, UMI, Ann Arbor, MI, 1997, UMI #9729078.
15.
Thomas J.
Greenbowe
and David E.
Meltzer
, “Student learning of thermochemical concepts in the context of solution calorimetry
,” Int. J. Sci. Educ.
25
, 779
–800
(2003
).16.
S.
Rozier
and L.
Viennot
, “Students’ reasonings in thermodynamics
,” Int. J. Sci. Educ.
13
, 159
–170
(1991
);Laurence Viennot, Raisonner en Physique (De Boeck Université, Brussels, 1996), pp. 118–123;
Reasoning in Physics (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2001), pp. 105–110.
17.
R. Berger and H. Wiesner, “Zum Verständnis grundlegender Begriffe und Phänomene der Thermodynamik bei Studierenden,” in Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, Fachverband Didaktik der Physik: Didaktik der Physik (Technische Universität Berlin, Institut für Fachdidaktik Physik und Lehrerbildung, Berlin, 1997), pp. 736–741;
also available on CD in DPG 1997: Didaktik, Umwelt; Tagungsberichte der Fachgremien (2N Hochschulkommunikation, Holtzheim, 1997), ISBN 3-931253-06-6.
18.
J. W.
Warren
, “The teaching of the concept of heat
,” Phys. Educ.
7
, 41
–44
(1972
).19.
David B. Pushkin, “The influence of a computer-interfaced calorimetry demonstration on general physics students’ conceptual views of entropy and their metaphoric explanations of the second law of thermodynamics,” Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, UMI, Ann Arbor, MI, 1995, UMI #9612815.
20.
Michael E.
Loverude
, Christian H.
Kautz
, and Paula R. L.
Heron
, “Student understanding of the first law of thermodynamics: Relating work to the adiabatic compression of an ideal gas
,” Am. J. Phys.
70
, 137
–148
(2002
).21.
Michael Eric Loverude, “Investigation of student understanding of hydrostatics and thermal physics and of the underlying concepts from mechanics,” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Physics, University of Washington, UMI, Ann Arbor, MI, 1999, UMI #9937617.
22.
David E. Meltzer, “Student reasoning regarding work, heat, and the first law of thermodynamics in an introductory physics course,” in Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by Scott Franklin, Jeffrey Marx, and Karen Cummings (PERC Publishing, Rochester, NY, 2001), pp. 107–110.
23.
1999: David Halliday, Robert Resnick, and Jearl Walker, Fundamentals of Physics, Extended (Wiley, New York, 1997), 5th ed.;
2000: Raymond A. Serway, Principles of Physics [custom printing] (Saunders, Fort Worth, 1998), 2nd ed.;
2001: David Halliday, Robert Resnick, and Jearl Walker, Fundamentals of Physics, Extended (Wiley, New York, 2001), 6th ed.
24.
Ronald Lane Reese, University Physics (Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, 2000).
26.
H.
Goldring
and J.
Osborne
, “Students’ difficulties with energy and related concepts
,” Phys. Educ.
29
, 26
–31
(1994
).27.
The conclusion of Kaper and Goedhart (Ref. 11) that students treat heat as a state function was based on interpretation of remarks made by several students during tape-recorded conversations occurring in tutorial sessions.
28.
Ursula
Manthei
and Paul
Täubert
, “Zustandsgröße und Prozessgröße erläutert am Beispiel Energie—Arbeit, Wärme, Strahlung,” Phys. Schule
19
, 307
–317
(1981
).29.
Ruth W. Chabay and Bruce A. Sherwood, Matter & Interactions I: Modern Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 2002), p. 398.
30.
David E.
Trowbridge
and Lillian C.
McDermott
, “Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension
,” Am. J. Phys.
49
, 242
–253
(1981
).31.
Leith Dwyer Allen, “An investigation into student understanding of magnetic induction,” Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, UMI, Ann Arbor, MI, 2001, UMI #3011018, pp. 305–306.
32.
Rhett Allain, “Investigating the relationship between student difficulties with the concept of electric potential and the concept of rate of change,” Ph.D. dissertation, North Carolina State University, UMI, Ann Arbor, MI, 2001, UMI #3030022, Chaps. 2 and 5, and references therein.
33.
Mark W.
Zemansky
, “The use and misuse of the word ‘heat’ in physics teaching
,” Phys. Teach.
8
, 295
–300
(1970
).34.
A. Tiberghien and G. Delacôte, “Résultats préliminaires sur la conception de la chaleur,” in Physics Teaching in Schools: Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of GIREP, edited by G. Delacôte (Taylor & Francis, Ltd., London, 1978), pp. 275–282.
35.
In Ref. 22 it is shown that among students in 2000 and 2001 who responded to Question #2 by asserting that those students who answered Question #1 correctly (that is, by responding were more likely to support their incorrect answer about heat with an explicit argument that heat was independent of process, in comparison to students who had given an incorrect answer to the work question. (The latter group was more likely to offer some other explanation, or no explanation for their answer about heat.) This readiness to offer an incorrect explanation suggests the possibility that partially correct understanding (that is, regarding work) may actually be associated with an increase in the confidence with which students hold to an incorrect concept regarding heat.
36.
Lillian C. McDermott, “A view from physics,” in Toward a Scientific Practice of Science Education, edited by M. Gardner, J. G. Greeno, F. Reif, A. H. Schoenfeld, A. diSessa, and E. Stage (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1990), pp. 3–30;
Alan
Van Heuvelen
, “Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies
,” Am. J. Phys.
59
, 891
–897
(1991
);Alan
Van Heuvelen
, “Overview, Case Study Physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
59
, 898
–907
(1991
);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.
66
, 338
–352
(1998
);Alan
Van Heuvelen
and Xueli
Zou
, “Multiple representations of work-energy processes
,” Am. J. Phys.
69
, 184
–194
(2001
).37.
Lillian C. McDermott, Peter S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002), pp. 231–235;
Tutorials in Introductory Physics, Homework (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002), pp. 173–174.
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2004 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2004
American Association of Physics Teachers
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.
