Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 303–313 | Cite as

Cross-Grade Comparison of Students’ Understanding of Energy Concepts

  • Aysegul Saglam-Arslan


The aims of this cross-grade study were (1) to determine the level of understanding of energy concepts of students at different academic grades and the differences in understanding between these grades and (2) to analyse the conceptual development of these students. Two hundred and forty-three students at 3 different levels (high school, undergraduate, and postgraduate) participated in this study. The students’ understandings of energy concepts were determined using a questionnaire, which requested them to define the concept verbally, and to represent it graphically. The most important findings of this study may be summarised as follows. Students from the different groups generally succeeded in defining ‘energy’ in a similar way, namely as the ‘ability to do work’. Nevertheless, some students (including those at university) also provided different alternative conceptions related to the energy concept. In addition, some students also found difficulty in visually analysing the relationships between different variables using graphs. This finding could help explain why attainment levels of all groups falls short in questions that involve the graphical representation of data.


Cross-grade Level of understanding Conceptual development Energy concepts 


  1. Abraham MR, Williamson VM, Wetsbrook SL (1994) A cross-age study of the understanding of five chemistry concepts. J Res Sci Teach 31(2):147–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arcavi A (2003) The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educ Stud Math 52(3):215–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop AJ (1980) Spatial abilities and mathematics education: a review. Educ Stud Math 11(3):257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyes E, Stanisstreet M (1990) Pupils’ ideas concerning energy sources. Int Sci Educ 12(5):513–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brook AJ, Wells P (1988) Conserving the circus? An alternative approach to teaching and learning about energy. Phys Educ 23(2):80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bui Thi KH (2005) Une étude didactique de la vie de l’energie dans l’enseignement de la Physique, en France et au Vietnam: Des décalages entre savoirs à enseigner au Lycée et savoirs de la formation universitaire, peuvent-ils être source de difficultés pour les enseignants? Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, FranceGoogle Scholar
  7. Çalık M, Ayas A (2005) A comparison of level of understanding of grade 8 students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. J Res Sci Teach 42(6):638–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chevallard Y (1989) Le concept de rapport au savoir. Rapport personnel, rapport institutionnel, rapport officiel. Actes du séminaire de Didactique des Mathématiques et de l’Informatique année 1988-1989, LSD-IMAG, Grenoble, 211–236Google Scholar
  9. Diakidoy IAN, Kendeou P, Ioannides C (2003) Reading about energy: the effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemp Educ Psychol 28(3):335–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dimitriadis P, Kabouris K, Karanikas J, Papamichalis K, Papatsimba L, Kalkanis G (1999) Linear motion study through graphs a new technology-based learning environnement. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference of the European Science Education Research, Kiel 31 August–4 September, 36–38Google Scholar
  11. Domenech JL, Gil-perez D, Gras-marti A, Guisasola J, Torregrosa JM, Salinas J, Trumper R, Valdes P, Vilches A (2007) Teaching of energy issues: a debate proposal for a global reorientation. Sci Educ 16(1):43–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dreyfus T (1991) On the status of visual reasoning in mathematics and mathematics education. In: Furinghetti F (ed) Proceedings of the 15th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Universita de Genova, Genova, pp 33–48Google Scholar
  13. Duit R (1984) Learning to the energy concept in school—empirical results from the Philippines and West Germany. Phys Educ 19(2):59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duit R (1987) Should energy be illustrated as something quasi-material? Int J Sci Educ 9(2):139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duval R (1993) Registres de représentation sémiotique et fonctionnement cognitif de la pensée. Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives- IREM de Strasbourg 5:37–65Google Scholar
  16. Duval R (1995) Sémiosis et pensée humaine. Registres sémiotiques et apprentissages intellectuels. Peter Lang, BerneGoogle Scholar
  17. Elkana Y (1974) The discovery of the conservation of the energy. Hutchinson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Even R (1998) Factors involved in linking representations of functions. J Math Behav 17(1):105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fry M, Dimeo L, Wilson C, Sadler J, Fawns R (2003) A new approach to teaching ‘energy and change’: using an abstract picture language to teach thermodynamic thinking in junior science classes. Aust Sci Teach J 49(1):36–43Google Scholar
  20. Goldring H, Osborne J (1994) Students’ difficulties with energy and related concepts. Phys Educ 29(1):26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gürdal A, Şahin F, Bayram H (1999) İlköğretim öğretmen adaylarının enerji konusunda bütünlüğü sağlama ve ilişki kurma düzeyleri üzerine bir araştırma. Dokuz Eylül University. J Buca Fac Educ 10:382–395Google Scholar
  22. Haidar HA, Abraham MR (1991) A comparison of applied and theoretical knowledge of concept based on the particulate nature of matter. J Res Sci Teach 28(10):919–938Google Scholar
  23. Heuvelen AV, Zou X (2001) Multiple representations of work-energy processes. Am J Phys 69(2):184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hiebert J, Carpenter T (1992) Learning and teaching with understanding. In: Grouws DA (ed) Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Macmillan, New York, pp 65–97Google Scholar
  25. Hırça N, Çalık M, Akdeniz F (2008) Investigating grade 8 students’ conceptions of ‘energy’ and related concepts. J Turk Sci Educ 5(1):75–87Google Scholar
  26. Hitt F (1998) Difficulties in the articulation of different representations linked to the concept of function. J Math Behav 17(1):123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hitt F (2002) Representations and mathematics visualization. Cinvestav-IPN, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  28. Huis C, Berg E (1993) Teaching energy: a systems approach. Phys Educ 28(3):147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaper WH, Goedhart MJ (2002) Forms of energy, an intermediary language on the road to thermodynamics? Part I. Int J Sci Educ 24(1):81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kemp HR (1984) The concept of energy without heat or work. Phys Educ 19(5):234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Köse S, Bağ H, Sürücü A, Uçak E (2006) Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının canlılardaki enerji kaynaklarıyla ilgili görüşleri. Int J Envir Sci Educ 1(2):141–152Google Scholar
  32. Kruger C, Palacio D, Summers M (1992) Surveys of English primary school teachers’ conceptions of force, energy and materials. Sci Educ 76(4):339–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Küçük M, Çepni S, Gökdere M (2005) Turkish primary school students’ alternative conceptions about work, power and energy. J Phys Teach Educ 3(2):22–28Google Scholar
  34. Kurnaz MA (2007) Üniversite 1. sınıf seviyesinde enerji kavramının öğrenim durumlarının analizi. Unpublished master’s dissertation, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  35. Kurnaz MA, Saglam Arslan A (2009) Using the anthropological theory of didactics in physics: characterization of the teaching conditions of energy concept and the personal relations of freshmen to this concept. J Turk Sci Educ 6(1):72–88Google Scholar
  36. Lemmer M, Lemmer TN (2006) The role and place of energy in the physics curriculum. Paper presented at the GIREP 2006 conference: Modeling in Physics and Phys Educ, 20–25 Aug 2006, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  37. Meltzer DE (2004) Investigation of students’ reasoning regarding heat, work, and the first law of thermodynamics in an introductory calculus-based general physics course. Am J Phys 72(11):1432–1446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morgil I, Yoruk N (2006) Cross age study of the understanding of some concepts in chemistry subjects in science curriculum. J Turk Sci Educ 3(1):15–27Google Scholar
  39. Nicholls G, Ogborn J (1993) Dimensions of children’s conceptions of energy. Int J Sci Educ 15(1):73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Papadouris N, Constantinou CP (2006) Design, development and validation of a teaching proposal for energy: results from a pilot implementation. Paper presented at the GIREP 2006 conference: Modeling in Physics and Phys Educ, 20–25 August 2006, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  41. Papadouris N, Constantinou CP, Kyratsi T (2008) Students’ use of the energy model to account for changes in physical systems. J Res Sci Teach 45(4):444–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pell T, Jarvis T (2001) Developing attitude to science scales for use with children of ages from five to eleven years. Int J Sci Educ 23(8):847–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Piez CM, Voxman MH (1997) Multiple representations-using different perspectives to form a clearer picture. Math Teach 90(2):164–166Google Scholar
  44. Presmeg NC (2006) Research on visualization in learning and teaching mathematics. In: Gutiérrez A, Boero P (eds) Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past present and future. Sense, Rotterdam, pp 205–235Google Scholar
  45. Rowlands S, Graham T, Berry J, McWilliams P (2007) Conceptual change through the lens of Newtonian mechanics. Sci Educ 16(1):21–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Saka A, Cerrah L, Akdeniz AR, Ayas A (2006) A cross-age study of the understanding of three genetic concepts: how do they image the gene, DNA and chromosome? J Sci Educ Technol 15(2):192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sefton I (2004) Understanding energy. In: Proceedings of 11th biennial science teachers’ Workshop, 17–18 June 2004, University of SydneyGoogle Scholar
  48. Séjourné A, Tiberghien A (2001) Conception d’un hypermédia en physique et études des activités des élèves du point de vue de l’apprentissage. Actes du Cinquième Colloque Hypermédias et Apprentissages, GrenobleGoogle Scholar
  49. Tairab HH, Al-Naqbi AK (2004) How do secondary school science students interpret and construct scientific graphs? J Biol Educ 38(3):127–132Google Scholar
  50. Trigueros M, Martínez-Planell R (2009) Geometrical representations in the learning of two-variable functions. Educ Stud Math, Published online 24 June 2009Google Scholar
  51. Trowbridge JE, Mintzes JJ (1988) Alternative conceptions in animal classification: a cross-age study. J Res Sci Teach 25(7):547–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Trumper R (1990) Being constructive: an alternative approach to the teaching of the energy concept, part one. Int J Sci Educ 12(4):343–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Trumper R (1991) Being constructive: an alternative approach to the teaching of the energy concept, part two. Int J Sci Educ 13(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Trumper R (1998) A longitudinal study of physics students’ conceptions on energy in pre-service training for high school teachers. J Sci Educ Technol 7(4):311–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Trumper R, Gorsky P (1993) Learning about energy: the influence of alternative frameworks, cognitive levels, and closed-mindedness. J Res Sci Teach 30(7):637–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ünal Çoban G, Aktamış H, Ergin Ö (2007) İlköğretim 8. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Enerjiyle İlgili Görüşleri. Gazi University. J Kastamonu Fac Educ 15(1):175–184Google Scholar
  57. Van Den Berg E, Van Den Berg R, Capistrano N, Sicam A (2000) Kinematics graphs and instant feedback. Sch Sci Rev 82:104–107Google Scholar
  58. Warren JW (1982) The nature of energy. Eur J Sci Educ 4(3):295–297Google Scholar
  59. Warren JW (1983) Energy and its carriers: a critical analysis. Phys Educ 18(5):209–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Watts DM (1983) Some alternative views on energy. Phys Educ 18(5):213–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Westbrook SL, Marek EA (1992) A cross-age study of student understanding of the concept of homeostasis. J Res Sci Teach 29(1):51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fatih Faculty of Education, Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics EducationKaradeniz Technical UniversitySogutluTurkey

Personalised recommendations