Using circuit and wiring Diagrams to identify students' mental models of basic electric circuits
5. Implications for teaching and further research
The use of wiring diagrams as a context that is different from the standard physics classroom could provide us with an opportunity to gain some insight into the way
students interpret electrical concepts and learn electricity. This could have an
influence on the design of instructional programmes as it could be a useful tool for the both the detection and the amelioration of preconceived mental models of circuits and current. In the same way, the overlap between context and cognitive factors in
conceptual change situations such as the wiring of a dolls house is a fertile avenue for further research. Whether or not the transitional thinking found in developing wiring diagrams from circuit diagrams is evidence of the influence of context and the failure of students to transfer conceptual knowledge from one context to another or of the development of intermediate concepts within a conceptual development process needs further investigation, as does the high prevalence of unipolar thinking amongst
students. In addition the connection of drawings with unipolar elements to
phenomenological prirrutives or na"ive conceptions about the nature of electricity also needs further investigation.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, while the limjtations to this study have not allowed me to draw detailed conclusions about the connection between phenomenological primjtives and the drawings made by the students, it does seem possible that the use of wiring diagrams could be a useful tool to expose such thinking. Whether the origin of the um polar features of the wiring diagrams is as a result of p-prims, context, the development of intermedjate models of thinking or a combination of some or all of these, is something that requires a more detailed study. This study simply points to the issues that have arisen as a consequence of the drawing of these diagrams.
References
Arons, A. (1981 ). Thinking, reasoning and understanding in introductory physics courses. The Physics Teacher, 3, 166-172.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of human behaviour, (vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.
Baser, M. (2006). Effects of conceptual change and traditional confinnatory
simulations on pre-service teachers' understanding of direct current circuits.
Journal of Science, Education & Technology, 15(5), 367-381.
Beeth, M. E., & Hewson, P. W. (1999). Learning goals in an exemplary science teacher's practice: Cognitive and social factors in teaching for conceptual change. Science Education, 83, 738-760.
Borges, A. T., & Gilbert, J. K. (1999). Mental models of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 95-117.
Cheng, M-F. & Brown, D. E. (2010). Conceptual Resources in Self-developed Explanatory Models: The importance of integrating conscious and intuitive knowledge, International Journal of Science Education, 32, 2367-2392.
Cheng, M-F., & Brown, D. E. (2010). Conceptual resources in self-developed explanatory models: The importance of integrating conscious and intuitive knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 2367-2392.
Chi, M. T. I I., & Slotta, J. D. (1993). The ontological coherence of intuitive physics, Cognition and Instruction, 10, 249-260.
di Sessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction 10, (2 & 3), 105-226.
Duschl, R. A., & Hamilton, R. J. (1998). Conceptual change in science and the learning of science. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.) International handbook of science education part one (pp. 104 7-1065). Great Britain:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Education Management Information systems (EMIS). (2006). School Disadvantage
Indicators.
Engelhardt, P., & Beichner, R. (2004). Students understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. American Journal of Physics, 72(1), 98-115.
Fredette, N. H., & Clement, J. (1981 ). Student misconceptions of an electric circuit:
What do they mean? Journal of College Science Teaching, 10(5), 280-285.
Gilbert, J. K., Warts, D. M., & Osborne, R. J. (1985). Eliciting student views using and interview-about-instances technique. In C. West and A. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change, (pp. 11-27). Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Grayson, D. J. (2004). Concept substitution: A teaching strategy for helping students disentangle related physics concepts. American Journal of Physics, 72(8), 1126-1133.
Hart, C. (2008). Models in Physics, Models for Physics Learning, and Why the Distinction may Matter in the Case of Electric Circuits. Research in Science Education, 38(5), 529-544.
Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.) International handbook of science education part one (pp. 199-218). Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Jaakkola, T., Nunni, S., & Veermans, K. (2011). A comparison of students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. Journal of Research in Science and Technology, 48(1), 71-93.
Kyle, W. C., Abell, S., & Shymansky, J. A. (1989). Enhancing prospective teachers conceptions of teaching and science. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
1(1), 10-13.
Kilc;tikozer, H., & Kocakillah, S. (2007). Secondary school students' misconceptions about simple electric circuits. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(1), 101-115.
Linder, C. J. (1993). A challenge to conceptual change. Science Education, 77(3), 293-300.
Mackay, J. (2009). The effect of Gender and Context on using wiring diagrams as a tool to reveal student thinking. Paper presented at ICPE International
Symposium, Bangkok, Thailand.
Marshall, J. (2008) Creation and interpretation of circuit diagrams. Electronic Journal o/Science Education, 12(2), 112-131.
McDennott, L. C., & Shaffer, P. S. (1992). Research as a Guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part 1: Investigation of student understanding. Am. J Phys., 60(11), 994-1013.
Niedderer, H., & Goldberg, F. (1994). An individual student's learning process in electric circuits. Paper presented at NARST annual meeting in Anaheim, CA.
Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning Science: A Generative Process.
Science Education, 76, 489-508.
Perry, H., & Fleisch, B. (2006). Gender and educational achievement in South Africa.
In V. Reddy (Ed.), Marking matric (pp. 107-26). Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982).
Accommodation of a Scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-27.
Shipstone, D. (1988). Pupils' understanding of simple electrical circuits. Physics Education, 23, 92-96.
Stanton, M. ( 1990a). Students' alternative conceptions of the DC circuit - 1.
Spectrum, 28(2), 28-33.
Stanton, M. (1990b). Students' alternative conceptions of the DC circuit- 3.
Spectrum, 28(4), 32-38.
Tasker, R., & Osborne, R. (1985). Science teaching and science learning. In R.
Osborne & P. Freyberg (Eds.), Learning in science: The implications of children's science (pp. 15-27). Auckland: Heinemann.
Tiberghien, A., & Delacote, G. (1976). Manipulations et representations de circuits electriques simples par des enfants de 7 a 12 ans. Rev Francois de Pedagogie, 34, 32-44.
Treagust, D. F. (2006). Conceptual change as a viable approach to understanding student learning in science. In K.G. Tobin (Ed.), Teaching and Learning Science, A Handbook, (pp. 25-32). Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Tsai, C-H., Chen H-Y., Chou C-Y., & Lain K-D. (2007). Current as the Key Concept of Taiwanese Students' Understandings of Electric Circuits International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 483-496.
Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The Framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (pp. 3-34). Routledge: New York.
Concluding remarks
In this concluding section, I would like to first summarize the findings of the last three chapters. Chapter 4 provided evidence of differences in conceptual thinking that were based on gender. It is assumed that these differences are not due to ability, but rather due to societal influences that position electro-technology as male knowledge. This I feel has led to low levels of self-efficacy in the learning of electricity by female students and while I did not explore the impact of learning electricity on students perceptions of their own femininities and masculinities, there was sufficient evidence indicating that attitudes towards the "maleness" of electricity had an impact on levels of self-efficacy. This is discussed in chapters 5 and 6.
Wiring diagrams are technological by nature and provide a context for the development of electrical ideas. The drawing of wiring diagrams can I believe be used to further understand the transitions that students make when they assimilate and accommodate new information. It is clear from evidence presented above that many students are able to operate in two worlds, where they separate their old ideas from their new ideas. Sometimes these two are mixed in a transitional model that somehow accommodates both worlds. This aspect of mental modelling needs further research.
Students showed poorer performance in developing wmng diagrams than circuit diagrams, along with regression to unipolar models of design as well as (in fewer cases) simple series circuits, suggesting that when students are asked to plan a circuit spatially, they retreat to models of thinking that we as teachers believe they have "left behind". This could be related to poor spatial visualisation that has been found in other literature to be common in non-science majors and learners from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds.
There is some evidence gathered to suggest that the context of the wiring diagrams affected performance based on gender. Interviews with selected female students who drew wiring diagrams suggests that for some female students context does have some
effect on whether or not they feel able to design circuit and wiring diagrams. This will be discussed later in the final chapter.
Addressing the use of the theoretical frameworks
In this article, the overriding framework for analysis is that of constructivism,
conceptual change theory and the wealth of literature on learning electrical concepts.
It is through this lens that I have interpreted theoretically, the errors made in the drawing of wiring diagrams. While there was an initial element of interpretation through the lens of gender theory, there was insufficient evidence for this and so the paper remains one that looks at the data through one lens only.
Addressing the research questions
This article addresses the last research question 4.
"What common errors were made in drawing both circuit and wiring diagrams and in what way do these errors reflect the students' conceptual thinking?"
In the anaJysis of common errors in drawing circuit and wiring diagrams, I have been able to make a connection between the errors on the one hand and models of thinking on the other and in addition connect the work done on phenomenological primitives and the drawings made by the students. From this, it seems that the use of wiring diagran1s could be a useful tool to expose such thinking. Whether the origin of the unipolar features of the wiring diagrams is as a result of p-prims, context, the development of intermediate models of thinking or a combination of some or all of these, is something that requires a more detailed study. This study simply points to the issues that have arisen as a consequence of the drawing of these diagrams and in so doing, addresses this last question.