This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date.
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date.
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date.
This article was downloaded by: [Australian National University Library]
On: 13 November 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 907447645] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37- 41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK International Journal of Science Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713737283 High school students' understanding of resistance in simple series electric circuits Laurent Ligeois; Etienne Mullet To cite this Article Ligeois, Laurent and Mullet, Etienne'High school students' understanding of resistance in simple series electric circuits', International Journal of Science Education, 24: 6, 551 564 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09500690110066520 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690110066520 Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. High school students understanding of resistance in simple series electric circuits Laurent Liegeois, Universite Paul-Valery, Montpellier and Etienne Mullet, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, France In view of the lack of work on the understanding of resistance concept, we studied the understanding that high school students (from the eighth to the twelfth grades) were able to develop with regard to the interrelationships between this concept, and the potential difference and current concepts (Ohms law). In addition, we explored the immediate effects of exposure to electricity courses on the intuitive mastery of these relationships. The participants were presented with information on potential difference and intensity of current and asked to predict the corresponding resistance values. In this current-potential difference context, the resistance concept was difficult to understand. For the majority of participants, resistance was a direct function of both current and potential difference, which is more reminiscent of the concept of power than of the concept of resistance. The systematic teaching of electricity concepts and Ohms law had only limited, positive as well as negative, effects on the understanding of these relationships. The implications for education are discussed. Introduction The understanding of electricity concepts by young pupils (Fleer 1994), high school students, and college and university students (Borges and Gilbert 1999, Shepardson and Moje 1999) has been the focus of many studies in psychology and education. The concepts investigated include electric circuits (Andre and Ding 1991), electric diagrams (Johsua and Dupin 1985), current (Rozencwajg 1992), and potential difference at battery terminals (Millar and Beh 1993, Millar and King 1993). However, to our knowledge, the concepts of resistance and the concept of power have not been extensively investigated (see, Psillos and Koumaras 1993). It has been repeatedly shown that pupils, students, and even their teachers (Webb 1992, Wiles and Wright 1997), as well as practitioners (Borges and Gilbert 1999), share a number of misconceptions about these notions (see, Chan et al. 1998, for a review). These misconceptions were observed in various countries each having distinct educational systems (Shipstone et al. 1988). Misconceptions among young children and young adolescents In young children, electrical current is frequently considered as being transferred from batteries to light bulbs in a similar way to how orange juice is transferred from a bottle to the mouth using a straw (the sink model, Fredette and Lochhead 1980). Hence, the possible reason why the popular term juice is used by some to designate electrical current. In young adolescents, the light in a bulb is frequently International Journal of Science Education ISSN 09500693 print/ISSN 14645289 online #2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/09500690110066520 INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 2002, VOL. 24, NO. 6, 551564 D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ A u s t r a l i a n
N a t i o n a l
U n i v e r s i t y
L i b r a r y ]
A t :
0 7 : 3 5
1 3
N o v e m b e r
2 0 0 9 considered as the result of the clashing between the positive current coming from the positive side of the battery, and the negative current coming from the negative side (Osborne 1983). For young adolescents and even for some college students, an electric circuit does not need to be closed to be operative. In addition, evident short-circuits in an electrical circuit are not easily detected (Johsua 1984). Misconceptions among students: the localist approach Previous research has shown that when reasoning about an electrical circuit, many students are unwilling to consider it as a whole where elements are totally inter- dependent. Students usually approach electrical circuits in a localist way and in a sequentialist way (Cohen et al. 1983, Closset 1984). The localist approach is char- acterized by the fact that each part of the circuit tends to be treated separately. In the circuit given in figure 1, the battery, the left segment with its ammeter, the resistance and its associated voltmeter, are considered as separate elements. The sequentialist approach is characterized by the fact that some parts of the circuit tend to be considered before other parts. In the circuit given in figure 1, the left segment with its ammeter portion of the circuit will be considered before (or after) the resistance and its associated voltmeter portion, and the resistance and its as- sociated voltmeter portion will, in turn, be considered before (or after) the right segment. As a result, a phenomenon affecting one part of the circuit will be reflected in the subsequent portions of the circuit without affecting the preceding portions. Misconceptions among students: confusing potential difference and current Previous research has also shown that the concept of potential difference is a difficult one for pupils and students to master. The main reason for this difficulty is that everyday experience with regards to potential difference is probably lacking 552 L. LIE
GEOIS AND E. MULLET
Figure 1. Example of material presented to the participants. D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ A u s t r a l i a n
N a t i o n a l
U n i v e r s i t y
L i b r a r y ]
A t :
0 7 : 3 5
1 3
N o v e m b e r
2 0 0 9 for most people (with the exception perhaps of those who travel frequently from Europe to America and vice versa, and who are therefore familiar with voltage adaptors). From the physicists point of view (Psillos and Koumaras 1993), potential difference refers to the inequality of charge between the battery terminals. This inequality of charge results from chemical reactions inside the battery (the separa- tion of positive and negative charges, and their accumulation on opposite sides). Potential difference is at the origin of the electric current, that is, at the origin of the motion of the free electrons in the conductor in order to replace the missing electrons in the positive battery terminal. Potential difference resulting from elec- trochemical reactions inside the battery has a constant value. Students, as well as most non-professionals in the field, tend to share the reverse point of view, that is, to view electrical current as the origin of potential difference and potential differ- ence as a mere measure of electric flow, more or less synonymous with intensity of current. In addition, electrical current is usually viewed as dissipating through the diverse elements of the circuit, especially bulbs (resistors). Finally, previous research has shown that the concept of current is easier to master than the concept of potential difference (Psillos et al. 1988). From the physicists point of view (Psillos and Koumaras 1993), electrical current refers to the motion of the free electrons of the conductor in order to replace the missing electrons in the positive battery terminal: current is a measure of that flow. The more electrons passing through some portion of the conductor per unit of time, the greater the current. The students and the non-professionals conceptions of cur- rent are not very far from the scientific point of view. The present study There has been much less research on the understanding of resistance concepts than on the understanding of current and potential difference (Psillos and Koumaras 1993). From the physicists point of view, resistance is due to the friction of the moving electrons with the conductor/resistor ions (Psillos and Koumaras 1993). As a result, the greater the friction, the less the electrons flow (less current), and the greater the potential difference (inequality of charges) at the terminals of the resistor. Resistance is a constant property of the resistor at a given temperature. Students, and most non-professionals in the field, tend to view resistors essen- tially as sources of heat (or light), that is to say as the locus of the dissipation of current (Cohen et al. 1983). This is due to the fact that everyday experience with resistors is through the use of light bulbs or radiators. Other domestic appliances are not viewed as resistors. In view of the lack of work on the understanding of the resistance concept, we decided to study the understanding that high school students (from the eighth to the twelfth grades) were able to develop with regard to the interrelationships between this concept, and the potential difference and current concepts. In addi- tion, we also wanted to explore the immediate effects of exposure to electricity courses on the intuitive mastery of these relationships. The problem was approached in what Millar and Beh (1993: 152) termed an instrumentalist way, and what Millar and King (1993: 348) refer to as an oblique approach. We wanted to study what participants do concretely with current and UNDERSTANDING OF RESISTANCE IN ELECTRIC CIRCUITS 553 D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ A u s t r a l i a n
N a t i o n a l
U n i v e r s i t y
L i b r a r y ]
A t :
0 7 : 3 5
1 3
N o v e m b e r
2 0 0 9 potential difference information when inferring resistance. What information do the participants take into account? And in what way? How do they combine infor- mation? As stated by Millar and Beh, the ability to predict voltmeter readings in simple series circuits is one part of what we might mean by an understanding of voltage (p. 348). This statement by Millar and Beh could easily be extended to resistance by saying that the ability to predict resistance values is one part of what we might mean by an understanding of resistance. Understanding resistance According to Ohms law: Resistance Potential difference / Current. The under- standing of this equation, that is, according to Millar and Beh, the ability to use it to predict resistance values, presupposes: (a) the recognition of a relationship between potential difference and resistance; (b) the recognition of a relationship between current and resistance; (c) the recognition of the direct relationship between potential difference and resistance; (d) the recognition of an inverse rela- tionship between current and resistance; (e) the recognition of the fact that these relations are the only relevant ones; and (f) the recognition of the fact that a division operation needs to be applied. The correct pattern of results corresponding to this equation is shown in figure 2. On the horizontal axis are three current levels. On the vertical axis are computed resistance values. The three curves in each panel correspond to three possible potential difference values. The two panels correspond to two possible positions of the ammeter (before and after the resistor). In each panel, both curves were 554 L. LIE
GEOIS AND E. MULLET
A m . o n t h e R i g h t
R e s i s t a n c e 0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 L o w I n t . M e d . I n t H i g h I n t . A m . o n t h e L e f t L o w I n t . M e d . I n t H i g h I n t . L o w P o t . D i f . H i g h P o t e n t i al M e d i u m D i f f e r e n ce On the horizontal axis are shown three intensity of current levels. On the vertical axis are computed resistance values. The three curves in each panel correspond to three possible potential difference values. The two panels correspond to two possible positions of the ammeter (before and after the resistor). Figure 2. Theoretical pattern of results. D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ A u s t r a l i a n
N a t i o n a l
U n i v e r s i t y
L i b r a r y ]
A t :
0 7 : 3 5
1 3
N o v e m b e r
2 0 0 9 descending: the higher the intensity of the current, the lower the resistance. In each panel, curves were clearly separated: the higher the potential difference, the higher the resistance. In each panel, both curves were at the same level on the vertical axis; the position of the ammeter had no effect on the value of resistance. In each panel, the curves form a linear fan opened to the left with the high potential difference curve on the top of the low potential difference curve; the combination of potential difference and current obeyed a division rule. The understanding of the concept of resistance may be defective for a number of independent or associated reasons. We can consider a case in which a student is presented with the electrical circuit shown in figure 1. This student has (pictorial) information on potential difference (low or high) and current (low or high) and is asked to infer the resistance of the resistor. The student may in fact only take the current information into account (if current is high, that means that current flows easily through the resistor and that resistance is low, irrespective of the potential difference level). In contrast, the student may only take potential difference into account (resistance and potential difference can be seen as referring to the same object, the resistor). The student may take the current information into account without realizing that the relationship is negative (the greater the current, the greater the resistance). As shown by numerous authors, most students and most non-professionals in the field insufficiently discriminate between current and potential difference. Potential difference and current are viewed as basically the same phenomenon (a mere measure of electric current) or at least as very similar phenomena. As a conse- quence, the direction of the relationship between potential difference and resist- ance, and the relationship between current and resistance, can not be easily conceived as having opposite signs: a direct relationship in the case of potential difference, and an inverse relationship in the case of current. Finally, the student may intuitively combine the two pieces of information but in a sub-optimal way, for example subtractively, and/or inference may be con- taminated by irrelevant information (position A or A of the ammeter in the cir- cuit). Functional theory of cognition The methodological framework for this study was the Functional Theory of Cognition (Anderson 1996). This theory provides a description of the algebraic structure of the cognitive processes underlying the integration of multiple pieces of information (potential difference and current, for example) into a single judgement (resistance, for example). Functional measurement methodology has been applied successfully in a variety of related fields: intuitive geometry (Mullet and Miroux 1996, Rulence-Paques and Mullet 1998), intuitive number sense (Cuneo 1982, Munoz Sastre and Mullet 1998), and intuitive physics (Mullet and Gervais 1990, Anderson and Wilkening 1991). The major advantages of this method are that, (a) it yields true linear response scales; and (b) it can successfully account for integration processes in algebraic terms. Both advantages are of vital importance in intuitive physics studies. They allow for considering and interpreting not only main effects (effect of potential difference on resistance, for example) but also interactions. In the study of the concept of resistance, the potential difference X current interaction plays a major UNDERSTANDING OF RESISTANCE IN ELECTRIC CIRCUITS 555 D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ A u s t r a l i a n
N a t i o n a l
U n i v e r s i t y
L i b r a r y ]
A t :
0 7 : 3 5
1 3
N o v e m b e r
2 0 0 9 role. Functional measurement methodology has been chosen over other approaches because it allows for easily assessing and testing this interaction. Hypotheses It can be hypothesized, based on the work by Stavy and Tirosh (1996) and by Andersson (1986), that when asked to infer resistance from potential difference and current information, pupils from eighth and ninth grades would take into account: (a) potential difference information in a direct way (the greater the poten- tial difference, the greater the resistance); as well as (b) current information in a direct way (the greater the current, the greater the resistance). According to Stavy and Tirosh (1996) students commonly use a kind of More of AMore of B rule when confronted with comparison tasks or inference tasks in various physical or mathematical settings (see also, Tirosh and Stavy 1999). According to Andersson (1986), this could be due to the kind of experiential gestalt of causation pupils have derived from everyday life (the greater the effort he makes, the bigger the effect on the object, Andersson 1986: 157). It can also be hypothesized that, due to their localist-sequentialist approach, pupils from eighth and ninth grades would also consider that the resistance value is dependent on the position of the ammeter in the circuit (before or after the resistor). It can be hypothesized that tenth, eleventh and twelfth graders, who have been exposed to many electricity lessons, including Ohms law, and who have conducted many electricity experiments in class, would (a) take into account potential differ- ence information in a direct way and current information in an inverse way, but apply a less than normative combination (subtractive), and (b) be less sensitive to irrelevant information. Finally, it can be hypothesized that just after exposure to electricity lessons all participants would show better performance with regards to the use of current and potential difference information, and would be better able to disregard irrelevant information than before exposure. Method Participants Participants were 100 students of various ages, and various school levels: 20 eighth-graders (12 girls and 8 boys, mean age 13.9), 20 ninth-graders (9 girls and 11 boys, mean age 15.1), 23 tenth-graders (14 girls and 9 boys, mean age 16.3), 20 eleventh-graders (15 girls and 5 boys, mean age 17.6), and 17 twelfth-graders (9 girls and 8 boys). All students resided in Reims, France and volunteered for participation in the study. The average academic ability of each group was not different from the average academic ability of the students in the area. In addition, they were all from the same school district, that is they all had the same general geographical and socio-economic background. As basic electricity concepts are taught at each of the mentioned grades, students in the eighth grade had not previously learned about electricity concepts at the time of the first phase of the experiment; students in the ninth grade had participated in one course about electricity concepts (the year before the study); students in the tenth grade had participated in three courses; students in the 556 L. LIE
GEOIS AND E. MULLET
D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ A u s t r a l i a n
N a t i o n a l
U n i v e r s i t y
L i b r a r y ]
A t :
0 7 : 3 5
1 3
N o v e m b e r
2 0 0 9 eleventh grade had participated in four courses; and students in the twelfth grade had participated in a total of five courses. Material The material was composed of one series of 18 cards. On each card, an electrical circuit was printed (see figure 1). Under the circuit was a 16-cm response scale where the left anchor was No resistance, and the right anchor was High resist- ance. The series of 18 cards was obtained by an orthogonal crossing of the three factors describing the circuit: intensity of current (low, medium, high), potential difference (low, medium, high), and position of the ammeter (A or A). Procedure Participants were tested both before and after exposure to a course on electricity given at school. In both cases, the procedure was the same. It consisted of two phases. The first phase familiarized the participants with the material. The 18 cards were presented in random order. The participants were asked to examine each electrical circuit and place a mark on the resistance scale at what she or he believed to be the actual resistance value according to the position in the circuit of the ammeter, to the value shown by the ammeter, and to the value shown by the voltmeter. At the end of this phase, the participants were allowed to compare their responses and change their ratings until they were satisfied with the entire set of ratings. During this phase, information was provided before and during the test, with regards to the different elements of the circuit: battery, resistors, voltmeter, and ammeter. The second phase was the test phase proper. It was identical to the first phase except that the participants were no longer allowed to compare their responses, and that the 18 cards were embedded in a larger set of cards. (The responses given to the additional cards will be treated in a separate study). Participants worked individually at their own pace in a quiet room on the school grounds. Results The distance in centimetres between the No Resistance anchor and each parti- cipants marks was measured for phase 2. The participants used the entire range of the response scale for their ratings (from 0.1 to 15.90). Cluster analysis A cluster analysis (Complete Linkage) was performed on the whole set of data in order to determine possible different groups of participants. A five-cluster solution was chosen because it was the one best showing the diverse rules used. Results corresponding to these clusters are presented in figures 3 and 4. The top panels in figure 3 plot the values observed for Cluster I. On the vertical axis are the estimated resistance values. The curves were ascending: the higher the current, the higher the judged resistance; and the curves were separated: the higher the potential difference, the higher the resistance. In both panels, the curves were at the same level on the vertical axis; the position of the ammeter UNDERSTANDING OF RESISTANCE IN ELECTRIC CIRCUITS 557 D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ A u s t r a l i a n
N a t i o n a l
U n i v e r s i t y
L i b r a r y ]
A t :
0 7 : 3 5
1 3
N o v e m b e r
2 0 0 9 information was not taken into account for judging resistance. In each panel, the data panel formed a set of parallel lines; potential difference and current were combined following an additive law. The bottom panels in figure 3 plot the values observed for Cluster II. The curves were descending: the higher the current, the lower the judged resistance; and the curves were separated: the higher the potential difference, the lower the resistance. In both panels, the curves were at the same level on the vertical axis; the position of the ammeter information was not taken into account for judging resist- ance. In each panel, the data pattern was slightly fan shaped and open on the right; potential difference and current were not combined according to a strictly additive law. The top panels in figure 4 plot the values observed for Cluster III. The curves were flat: the current information was not taken into account for judging resist- ance. The curves were clearly separated: the higher the potential difference, the 558 L. LIE
GEOIS AND E. MULLET
A m . o n t h e R i g h t
R e s i s t a n c e 0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 L o w I n t . M e d . I n t . H i g h I n t . A m . o n t h e L e f t L o w I n t . M e d . I n t . H i g h I n t . L o w P o t e n t i al D i f f e r e n ce H i g h P o t e n t i al C l u st e r I D i f f e r e n ce
A m . o n t h e R i g h t
R e s i s t a n c e 0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 L o w I n t . M e d . I n t . H i g h I n t . A m . o n t h e L e f t L o w I n t . M e d . I n t . H i g h I n t . L o w P o t e n t i al D i f f e r e n ce H i g h P o t e n t i al C l u st e r I I D i f f e r e n ce
On the horizontal axis are shown three intensity of current levels. On the vertical axis are inferred resistance values. The three curves in each panel correspond to three possible potential difference values. The two panels correspond to two possible positions of the ammeter (before and after the resistor). Figure 3. Observed patterns of results: clusters I and II. D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ A u s t r a l i a n
N a t i o n a l
U n i v e r s i t y
L i b r a r y ]
A t :
0 7 : 3 5
1 3
N o v e m b e r
2 0 0 9 higher the resistance. In both panels, the curves were at the same level on the vertical axis; the position of the ammeter information was not taken into account for judging resistance. Finally, the bottom panels in figure 4 plot the values observed for Cluster IV. The data pattern was complex. When potential difference was low, current was taken into account in a direct way for judging resistance. When potential difference was high, current was taken into account in an inverse way for judging resistance. Finally, when potential difference was medium, current was taken into account in an inverse way and then in a direct way for judging resistance. When the ammeter was on the left, current effects were higher than when the ammeter was on the right. UNDERSTANDING OF RESISTANCE IN ELECTRIC CIRCUITS 559
A m . o n t h e R i g h t
R e s i s t a n c e 0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 L o w I n t . M e d . I n t . H i g h I n t . A m . o n t h e L e f t L o w I n t . M e d . I n t . H i g h I n t . H i g h P o t e n t i al D i f f e r e n ce L o w P o t e n t i al D i f f e r e n ce Cl u st e r I I I A m . o n t h e R i g h t
R e s i s t a n c e 0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 L o w I n t . M e d . I n t . H i g h I n t . A m . o n t h e L e f t L o w I n t . M e d . I n t . H i g h I n t . L o w P o t e n t i al D i f f e r e n ce H i g h P o t e n t i al D i f f e r e n ce Cl u st e r I V
On the horizontal axis are shown three intensity of current levels. On the vertical axis are inferred resistance values. The three curves in each panel correspond to three possible potential difference values. The two panels correspond to two possible positions of the ammeter (before and after the resistor). Figure 4. Observed patterns of results: clusters III and IV. D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ A u s t r a l i a n
N a t i o n a l
U n i v e r s i t y
L i b r a r y ]
A t :
0 7 : 3 5
1 3
N o v e m b e r
2 0 0 9 The values for Cluster V are not shown. Participants in Cluster V only used the current information. Curves were ascending and merged. Effect of exposure to electricity courses Table 1 presents the results relative to the effect of exposure to electricity courses on the resistance judgements. Before exposure, a majority of participants 45 23 68 took into account the potential difference information for judging resistance in a direct and correct way. After exposure, the global picture evolved slightly. The number of participants who took into account the potential difference information in a direct way was 74 61 13. Before exposure, the potential dif- ference information was taken into account in an inverse way for judging resistance only by a minority (13). After exposure, the global picture evolved slightly. The number of participants who took into account the potential difference information in an inverse way dropped to 5. Before exposure, a minority of participants (13) took into account the current information for judging resistance in an inverse and correct way. After exposure, the global picture deteriorated. The number of participants who took into account the current information, in an inverse way, was 5. Before exposure, many partici- pants (45) took into account, in a direct, incorrect way, the current information for judging resistance. After exposure, the global picture was clearly poorer. The number of participants who took into account the current information in a direct way was 61. Discussion It was hypothesized that when asked to infer resistance from potential difference and intensity of current information, eighth and ninth graders would take into 560 L. LIE
GEOIS AND E. MULLET
Table 1. Composition of the clusters (before and after exposure to elec- tricity courses). Clusters Clusters (After Exposure) Grade Levels (Before Exposure) I II III IV V 8 th 9 th 10 th 11 th 12 th Total I 37 1 2 0 5 11 15 5 12 2 45 II 7 2 0 1 3 3 4 2 2 2 13 III 9 1 8 2 3 3 1 7 3 9 23 IV 5 1 3 1 3 2 0 7 2 2 13 V 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 1 2 6 Grade Levels I II III IV V Total 8 th 10 2 0 0 8 20 9 th 16 2 1 0 1 20 10 th 16 1 4 1 1 23 11 th 16 0 1 1 2 20 12 th 3 0 7 2 5 17 Total 61 5 13 4 17 20 20 23 20 17 100 D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ A u s t r a l i a n
N a t i o n a l
U n i v e r s i t y
L i b r a r y ]
A t :
0 7 : 3 5
1 3
N o v e m b e r
2 0 0 9 account: (a) potential, difference information in a direct way; as well as (b) current information in a direct way. This is what was observed. More than half of the younger high school students used both pieces of information in a direct way. It was hypothesized that, due to their localist-sequentialist approach, pupils from eighth and ninth grades would also consider that the resistance value is dependent on the position of the ammeter in the circuit (before or after the resis- tor). This was not observed. It was hypothesized that at least some tenth, eleventh and twelfth grade students would take into account potential difference information in a direct way and current information in an inverse way but, apply a less than normative combination (subtractive). This hypothesis was not supported. Older high school students used potential difference and current information in a way very similar to that which the younger high school students did. Very few used current informa- tion in an inverse way and, when they did so, they also used potential difference information in an inverse way. Overall, high school students were not able to use potential difference and current information in a different way. The combination rule used can be expressed in the following equations: Resistance Potential difference Current 4 majority rule Resistance Potential difference Current 5 minority rule It was hypothesized that tenth, eleventh and twelfth graders, would be less sensi- tive to irrelevant information. This was not observed, essentially because younger students were not sensitive to the ammeter position information. Finally, it was hypothesized that just after exposure to electricity lessons all participants would show better performance with regards to the use of current and potential difference information and would be better able to disregard irrelevant information than before exposure. Exposure to an electricity course was mildly successful. After exposure, more high school students took into account, (a) the potential difference information in a direct, correct way; and (b) the current infor- mation in a direct, incorrect way. The effect of exposure to courses was, thus, shown to be positive as well as negative. This is consistent with previous studies. As already stated by Andersson (1986), scientific concepts only develop to a minor extent as a result of teaching (Andersson 1986: 155). The resistance concept was thus very difficult to understand in the current- potential difference context chosen in the present study. For a majority of parti- cipants, irrespective of age and training, resistance was a direct function of both current and potential difference. The current-potential difference confusion, shown by numerous authors, was clearly detrimental because potential difference and current have to be considered as having completely different effects on resist- ance: direct effect for potential difference, and the inverse for current. As a result of this confusion, when through some kind of estimation procedure resistance is found to be lower whereas current has, at the same time, decreased, the attention of the average student will not be alerted toward this inconsistent result, and the estimation procedure will not be revised. Worse, that resistance decreases at the same time that current decreases could be welcomed by the aver- age student as reassuring (the More of A more of B rule); and that resistance decreases at the same time that current increases could be considered by the average student as indicating that the estimation procedure has to be revised. UNDERSTANDING OF RESISTANCE IN ELECTRIC CIRCUITS 561 D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ A u s t r a l i a n
N a t i o n a l
U n i v e r s i t y
L i b r a r y ]
A t :
0 7 : 3 5
1 3
N o v e m b e r
2 0 0 9 The rule used by most participants to infer resistance: Resistance Potential difference Current is, in fact, much more reminiscent of the equation used for computing power than of Ohms law. This rule is exactly what Anderssons experi- ential gestalt of causation predicts. One component of Anderssons model is the greater the effort, the bigger the effect. This component was applied here by most participants with regards to the bivariate relationship between current and resist- ance, and the bivariate relationship between potential difference and resistance. Another component of this model is several agents have a greater effect than just one (Andersson 1986: 157). This component was applied here by most partici- pants in terms of the mutivariate relationship between current, potential difference and resistance. For these participants, current and potential difference add their effects. One could wonder if the material used in the present study confused partici- pants by being unusual or complex. In practice, no participant expressed any degree of difficulty with the material. Moreover, the participants were used to the type of electrical schemas used here, which were less complex than those usually found in most textbooks. One could also wonder if Ohms law was actually an important part in the electricity programme, and if enough teaching time hours were devoted to it. It is surprising to find out that Ohms law is in fact a major constituent of the electricity programmes from the ninth grade to the twelfth grade. Teachers insist that the understanding of Ohms law, and the correct use of the corresponding equations is one of the major pedagogical objectives in class. Implications for education Our guess is that in order to facilitate an understanding among pupils of the relationships between the components of Ohms law, some kind of functional teaching has to be used to complement traditional teaching. This type of functional teaching could be provided with computers (see also, Ronen and Eliahu 2000). Firstly, pupils could be presented with simplified electrical schemas (see figure 1) and asked to infer potential difference from current and resistance (qualitative) information. Responses should be given in a non-numeric format (length of bars for example), and feedback could be provided online in the same format. Previous studies using similar techniques have shown that, when both relationships are direct, learning occurs quickly and efficiently (Doherty and Kurz 1996). It remains to be shown, however, if this kind of technique can lead pupils to the intuition that the relationship is more than additive. Second, pupils could be presented with similar, simplified electrical schemas and asked to infer current from potential difference and resistance information. Responses should also be given in a non-numeric format, and feedback provided online in the same way. Two previous experiments (Chasseigne et al. 1997) using similar techniques have shown that, when one relationship is direct and one rela- tionship is inverse, learning occurs but not as quickly or efficiently as when both relationships are inverse. It is not known if this kind of technique can lead pupils to the intuition that the relationship is more than subtractive. Third, and finally, pupils could be asked to infer resistance of a resistor from current and potential difference information and be given feedback. In all three cases, feedback could also be given in various formats, including factorial graphs 562 L. LIE
GEOIS AND E. MULLET
D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ A u s t r a l i a n
N a t i o n a l
U n i v e r s i t y
L i b r a r y ]
A t :
0 7 : 3 5
1 3
N o v e m b e r
2 0 0 9 likes the ones presented in figure 2. Finally, pupils could be offered the oppor- tunity to visualize their progression in understanding, through visualization of their results pattern as it transforms as a result of their functional learning. Acknowledgement This work was supported by the Laboratoire Cognition and Decision of the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, by the UPRES Vieillissement, Rythmicite et Developpement Cognitif, and by the UMR Travail et Cognition. We are grateful to Sheila Rivie`re Shafighi, Stacey Callahan, and Gerard Chasseigne for their thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of this article. References Anderson, N. H. (1996) A Functional Theory of Cognition (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum). Anderson, N. H. and Wilkening, F. (1991) Adaptive thinking in intuitive physics. In N. H. Anderson, Contributions to Information Integration Theory (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum). Andersson, B. (1986) The experiential gestalt of causation: A common core to pupils preconceptions in science. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 155171. Andre, T. and Ding, P. (1991) Students misconceptions, declarative knowledge, stimulus conditions, and problem solving in basic electricity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 303313. Borges, A. T. and Gilbert, J. K. (1999) Mental models of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 95117. Chang, K.-E., Liu, S. H. and Chen, S. W. (1998) A testing system for diagnosing mis- conceptions in DC electric circuits. Computers and Education, 31, 195210. Chasseigne, G., Mullet, E. and Stewart, T. (1997) Aging and probability learning: the case of inverse relationships. Acta Psychologica, 97, 235252. Closset, J.-L. (1984) Sequential reasoning in electricity. In Research on Physics Education: Proceedings of the First International Workshop (Paris: CNRS), 313319. Cohen, R., Eylon, B. and Ganiel, U. (1983) Potential difference and current in simple electric circuits: a study of students concepts. American Journal of Physics, 51, 407 412. Cuneo, D. (1982) Childrens judgments on numerical quantity: a new view of early quanti- fication. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 1344. Doherty, M. E. and Kurz, E. (1996) Social judgment theory. Thinking and Reasoning, 2, 109140. Fleer, M. (1994) Determining childrens understanding of electricity. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 248253. Fredette, N. and Lochhead, J. (1980) Students conceptions of simple circuits. The Physics Teacher, 18 194198. Johsua, S. (1984) Students interpretation of simple electrical diagrams. European Journal of Science Education, 6, 271275. Johsua, S. and Dupin, J. J. (1985) Schematic diagrams, representations and types of reason- ing in basic electricity. In R. Duit, W. Jung, H. Pfund and C. von Rhoneck (eds) Aspects Of Understanding Electricity (Kiel: IPN), 129138. Millar, R. and Beh, K. L. (1993) Students understanding of voltage in simple parallel circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 351361. Millar, R. and King, T. (1993) Students understanding of voltage in simple series electric circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 339349. Mullet, E. and Gervais, H. (1990) Distinction between the concepts of weight and mass in high school students. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 217226. Mullet, E. and Miroux, R. (1996) Judgment of rectangular areas in children blind from birth. Cognitive Development, 11, 123139. UNDERSTANDING OF RESISTANCE IN ELECTRIC CIRCUITS 563 D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ A u s t r a l i a n
N a t i o n a l
U n i v e r s i t y
L i b r a r y ]
A t :
0 7 : 3 5
1 3
N o v e m b e r
2 0 0 9 MuN
oz Sastre, M. T. and Mullet, E. (1998) Evolution of the intuitive mastery of the
relationship between base, exponent, and number magnitude in high school students. Mathematical Cognition, 4, 6777. Osborne, R. (1983) Toward modifying childrens idea about electric current. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1, 7382. Psillos, D. and Koumaras, P. (1993) Multiple causal modeling of electrical circuits for enhancing knowledge intelligibility. In M. Caillot, Learning Electricity and Electronics with Advanced Educational Techniques (New York: Springer Verlag), 57 75. Psillos, D., Koumaras, P. and Tiberghien, A. (1988) Voltage presented as a primary con- cept in an introductory teaching sequence on DC circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 2943. Ronen, M. and Eliahu, M. (2000) Simulation a bridge between theory and reality: the case of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 1426. Rozencwajg, P. (1992) Analysis of problem solving strategies on electricity problems in 12 to 13 year olds. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 7, 522. Rulence-PA
ques, P. and Mullet, E. (1998) Perception of surface and inference of surface:
the case of the rectangle. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 69, 127. Shepardson, D. P. and Moje, E. B. (1999) The role of anomalous data in restructuring fourth graders frameworks for understanding electric circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 7794. Shipstone, D. M., von RhO
neck, C., Jung, W., KA
rrqvist, C., Dupin, J.J., Johsua, S. and
Licht, P. (1988) A study of studentsunderstanding of electricity in five European countries. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 303316. Stavy, R. and Tirosh, D. (1996) Intuitive rule in mathematics and science: the case of The more of Athe more of B. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 653667. Tirosh, D. and Stavy, R. (1999) Intuitive rules: a way to explain and predict students reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 5166. Webb, P. (1992) Primary science teachers understandings of electric current. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 423429. Wiles, N. and Wright, D. (1997) A hypermedia system to aid teacher understanding of pupil preconceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 2634. 564 UNDERSTANDING OF RESISTANCE IN ELECTRIC CIRCUITS D o w n l o a d e d