Turkish Students' Conceptions about the Simple Electric Circuits

  • Salih Çepni
  • Esra KeleşEmail author
Research Article


In this study, the Turkish students' understanding level of electric circuits consisting of two bulbs and one battery was investigated by using open-ended questions. Two-hundred fifty students, whose ages range from 11 to 22, were chosen from five different groups at primary, secondary and university levels in Trabzon in Turkey. In analyzing students' drawings and explanations, both qualitative and quantitative methodologies were exploited. The unipolar model (Model A), the clashing currents model (Model B), the current consumed model (Model C) and the scientist model with current conserved (Model D) determined from the related literature were used to categorize the students' answers. The results showed that the Turkish students have many misconceptions about electric circuits. Also, it is found out that especially Model A was widespread accepted among the students in group 1 (5th grade) and half of the students in group 3 (9th grade) has an understanding of electric circuits as it is in Model C.

Key words

cross-age study electric circuits science education students' concepts 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abraham, M.R., Grzybowski, E.B., Renner, J.W. & Marek, E.A. (1991). Understanding and misunderstanding of eight graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 105–120.Google Scholar
  2. Abraham, M.R., Williamson, V.M. & Westbrook, S.L. (1994). A cross-age study of the understanding of five chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 147–165.Google Scholar
  3. Akdeniz, A.R., Bektaş, U. & Yiğit, N. (2000). İlköğretim 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin temel fizik kavramlarını anlama düzeyi (The 8th grade students' levels of understanding of the introductory physics concepts). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19, 5–14.Google Scholar
  4. Asami, N., King, J. & Monk, M. (2000). Tuition and memory: Mental models and cognitive processing in Japanese children's work on d.c. electrical circuits. Research in Science & Technological Education, 18(2), 141.Google Scholar
  5. Asoko, H. (2002). Developing conceptual understanding in primary science. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ayas, A. (1993). A study of teachers' and students' view of the upper secondary curriculum and students' understanding of introductory chemistry concepts in the east black-sea region of Turkey. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. UK: University of Southampton.Google Scholar
  7. Ayas, A. & Demirbaş, A. (1997). Turkish secondary students' conceptions of introductory chemistry concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(5).Google Scholar
  8. Ayas, A., Çepni, S. & Akdeniz, A.R. (1993). Development of the Turkish secondary science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 77(4), 433–440.Google Scholar
  9. Ayas, A., Özmen, H. & Genç, H. (2001). Chemistry teaching in Turkey. Energy Education Science & Technology, 7(2), 59–65.Google Scholar
  10. Aycan, Ş., Aycan, N., Arý, E. & Türkoðuz, S. (2000). An investigation about “The effects of chemistry laboratory practices to the success of chemistry lesson in Manisa-Demirci High School”. IV. The Congress of Science Education (pp. 486–489). Ankara, Turkey: Hacettepe University.Google Scholar
  11. Azar, A. (2001). The analyses of misconceptions of university students about electricity. The Science Education Symposium at the beginning of New Era in Turkey (pp. 345–350). İstanbul, Turkey: Maltepe University.Google Scholar
  12. Başaran, İ.E. (1993). Türkiye Eğitim Sistemi. Ankara: Kadıoğlu Matbaası.Google Scholar
  13. Bauer, K.W. (2004). Conducting longitudinal studies. New Directions for Institutional Research, 121, 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Borges, A.T. & Gilbert, J.K. (1999). Mental models of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Büyükkasap, E., Samancı, O. & Dikel, S. (2002). Farklı öğretim düzeyinde okuyan öğrencilerin “basit elektrik devresi” ile ilgili düşünceleri (Different grade level students' ideas about simple electric circuits). İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(4), 27–34.Google Scholar
  16. Caillot, M. & Nguyen-Xuan, A. (1995). Adults' understanding of electricity. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Çalık, M. & Ayas, A. (2005). A comparison of level of understanding of grade 8 students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 638–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carlton, K. (1999). Teaching electric current and electrical potential. Physics Education, 34(6), 341–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carre, C. & Ovens, C. (1994). Science 711 developing primary teaching skills. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Çepni, S. (2005). Araştırma ve Proje Çalışmalarına Giriş, 2nd edn. Trabzon: Üçyol Kültür Merkezi.Google Scholar
  21. Çepni, S., Akdeniz, A.R. & Ayas, A. (1995). Fen bilimleri eğitiminde laboratuarın yeri ve önemi (III): Ülkemizde laboratuarın kullanımı ve bazı öneriler (Laboratory place and importance in science education (III): Using laboratory in our country and some suggestions). Çağdaş Eğitim Dergisi, 206, 24–28.Google Scholar
  22. Çepni, S., Aydın, A. & Ayvacı, H.Ş. (2000a). Students' understanding level of physics concepts in science program in grades 4 and 5. IV. The Congress of Science Education (pp. 135–140). Ankara, Turkey: Hacettepe University.Google Scholar
  23. Çepni, S., Ayvacı, H.Ş. & Keleş, E. (2000b). Understanding level of certificate students about physics concepts. X. The Congress of National Educational Sciences (pp. 1335–1342). Bolu, Turkey: Abant İzzet Baysal University.Google Scholar
  24. Çepni, S., Bacanak, A. & Gökdere, M. (2001). A model: Science classrooms of future. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 1(2), 277–293.Google Scholar
  25. Çepni S., Özsevgeç T. & Cerrah L. Turkish middle school students' cognitive development levels in science. Asia–Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching 2004; 5(1), Article 1.Google Scholar
  26. Çepni S., Taş E. & Köse S. (in press). The Effect of computer-assisted material on students' cognitive levels, misconceptions and attitudes towards science. Computers and Education.Google Scholar
  27. Clement, J.J. & Steinberg, M.S. (2002). Step-wise evolution of mental models of electric circuits: A “learning-aloud” case study. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 389–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education, 4th edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Coll, R.K. & Treagust, D.F. (2003). Learners' mental models of metallic bonding: A cross-age study. Science Education, 87, 685–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cosgrove, M. (1995). A Study of science-in-the-making as students an analogy for electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 17(3), 295–310.Google Scholar
  31. Cosgrove, D., Osborne, R.J. & Carr, M. (1985). Children's intuitive ideas on electric current and the modification of those ideas. In Duit, R. et al. (Eds.), Aspect of understanding electricity (pp. 247–256). Kiel: Vertrieb Schmidt and Klaunig.Google Scholar
  32. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P. & Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Duit, R. & Rhöneck, C. (1998). Learning and understanding key concepts of electricity. Retrieved from
  34. Eşme, İ. (2004). Fen öğretiminde sorunlar (The problems in science instruction). Özelokullar Birliği Bülteni.Google Scholar
  35. Fleer, M. Determining children's understanding of electricity. Journal of Educational Research, 84(4), 248–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Frederiksen J.R. & White B.Y. Sources of difficulty in students' understanding causal models for physical systems, symposium on complex causality and conceptual change. Annual meeting of the educational research association. New Orleans, 2000.Google Scholar
  37. Furio, C. & Guisasola, J. (1998). Difficulties in learning the concept of electric field. Instructional Science Education, 82, 511–526.Google Scholar
  38. Garnett, P.J. & Treagust, D.F. (1992). Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior school students of electrochemistry: Electric circuits and oxidation-reduction equatios. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 121–142.Google Scholar
  39. Gauld, C.F. (1988). The cognitive context of pupil's alternative frameworks. International Journal of Science Education, 10(3), 267–274.Google Scholar
  40. Gezer, K., Köse, S. & Sürücü, A. (1998). The situation of science education and the role of laboratory in this process. III. National Science Education Symposium (pp. 215–218). Trabzon, Turkey: Karadeniz Technical University.Google Scholar
  41. Greca, I.M. & Moreira, M.A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modeling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Guisasola, J., Zubimendi, J.L., Almudi, J.M. & Ceberio, M. (2002). The evolution of the concept of capacitance throughout the development of the electric theory and the understanding of its meaning by university students. Science & Education, 11, 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gürdal, A. (1991). Ýlkokul fen eğitiminde laboratuar ve araç kullanımı (The usage of laboratory and tools in primary science education). Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3, 145–155.Google Scholar
  44. Gutwill, J.P., Frederiksen, J.R. & White, B.Y. (1999). Making their own connections: Students' understanding of multiple models in basic electricity. Cognition and Instruction, 17(3), 249–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Heywood, D. (2002). The place of analogies in science education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kanim, S. (2001). Research-based modification to instruction in physics courses for engineers. Retrieved from Kanim.PDF.
  47. Karamustafaoğlu, S., Sevim, S. & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2001). The teaching methods used by science teachers: Trabzon Sample. X. The Congress of National Educational Sciences (pp. 1067–1077). Bolu, Turkey: Abant İzzet Baysal University.Google Scholar
  48. Karamustafaoğlu, S., Sevim, S., Karamustafaoğlu, O. & Çepni, S. (2003). Analysis of Turkish high school chemistry-examination questions according to bloom's taxonomy. Chemistry Education. Research and Practice, 4(1), 25–30.Google Scholar
  49. Keser, Ö.F. & Akdeniz, A.R. (2002). Investigating the factors effecting the traditional learning environments. V. National Science and Mathematics Education Congress. Ankara, Turkey: Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
  50. Kibble, B. (1999). How do you picture electricity? Physics Education, 34(4), 226–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Küçüközer, H. (2004). The influence of teaching method which was designed according to constructivist learning theory for first year high school students' on simple electric circuits. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Balıkesir, Turkey: Balıkesir University.Google Scholar
  52. Lawrenz, F. (1986). Misconceptions of physical science concepts among elementary school teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 86(8), 654–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lee, Y. & Law, N. (2001). Explorations in promoting conceptual change in electrical concepts via ontological category shift. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 111–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Liegeois, L. & Mullet, E. (2002). High school students' understanding of resistance in simple series electric circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 24(6), 551–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Liegeois, L., Chasseigne, G. & Papin, S. (2003). Improving high school students' understanding of potential difference in simple electric circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1129–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lockhart J. Student misconceptions in the understanding of electricity and methods and suggestions to improve teaching, 2000. Retrieved from
  57. Mclldowie, E. (1998). Teaching voltage–current relationships without Ohm's law. Physics Education, 33(5), 292–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. M.E.B. Yılı Başında Milli Eğitim (National education at the beginning of 2001). Araştırma Planlama Ve Koordinasyon Kurulu Başkanlığı, 2000.Google Scholar
  59. Monk, M. (1990). A genetic epistemological analysis of data on children's ideas about dc electrical circuits. Research in Science & Technological Education, 8(2), 133, 11p.Google Scholar
  60. Mulhall, P., MicKittrick, B. & Gunstone, R. (2001). A perspective on the resolution of confusions in the teaching of electricity. Research in Science Education, 31, 575–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nakiboğlu, C. & İşbilir, A. (2001). The evaluation of teachers' using laboratory in biology courses in secondary schools. The Science Education Symposium at the Beginning of New Era in Turkey (pp. 521–527). İstanbul, Turkey: Maltepe University.Google Scholar
  62. Niedderer, H. & Goldberg, F. (1994). An individual student's learning process in electric circuits. Retrieved from NARST L S.pdf.
  63. Orbay, M., Özdoğan, T., Öner, F., Kara, M. & Gümüş, S. (2003). “Fen bilgisi laboratuar uygulamaları I–II” dersinde karşılaşılan güçlükler ve çözüm önerileri (The difficulties facing at “Science laboratory practice I–II” lesson and solution suggestions). Milli Eğitim Vakfı Dergisi, 157.Google Scholar
  64. Osborne, R. & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science. Hong Kong: Heinemann Education.Google Scholar
  65. Pardhan, H. & Yasmeen, B. (2001). Science teachers' alternate conceptions about direct-currents. International Journal of Science Education, 23(3), 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Park, J., Kim, I., Kim, M. & Lee, M. (2001). Analysis of students' processes of confirmation and falsification of their prior ideas about electrostatics. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1219–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Posada, J.M. (1997). Conceptions of high school students concerning the internal structure of metals and their electric conduction: structure and evolution. Instructional Science Education, 81, 445–467.Google Scholar
  68. Qualter, A. (1995). A Source of power: young children's understanding of where electricity comes from. Research in Science & Technological Education, 13(2), 177, 10 p.Google Scholar
  69. Riche, R.D. (2000). Strategies for assisting students overcome their misconceptions in high school physics. Retrieved from
  70. Ronen, M. & Eliahu, M. (2000). Simulation – a bridge between theory and reality: the case of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sencar, S. & Eryılmaz, A. (2004). Factors mediating the effect of gender on ninth-grade Turkish students' misconceptions concerning electric circuits. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 603–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sencar, S., Yılmaz, E.E. & Eryılmaz, A. (2001). Lise öğrencilerinin basit elektrik devreleri ile ilgili kavram yanılgıları (High school students' misconceptions about simple electric circuits). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21, 113–120.Google Scholar
  73. Shepardson, D.P. & Moje, E.B. (1999). The role of anomalous data in restructuring fourth graders' frameworks for understanding electric circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shipstone, D. (1998). Pupils' understanding of simple electrical circuits. Physics Education, 23, 92–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shipstone, D. (1998). Electricity in simple circuits. In Driver R., Guesne E. & Tiberghien A. (eds) Children's Ideas in Science. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Shipstone, D. & Cheng, H. (2001). Electric circuits: A new approach – Part 1. School Science Review, 83(303), 55–63.Google Scholar
  77. Shipstone, D.M. & Gunstone, R.F. (1985). Teaching children to discriminate between current and energy. In Duit, R. et al. (Eds.), Aspect of understanding electricity (pp. 287–297). Kiel: Vertrieb Schmidt and Klaunig.Google Scholar
  78. Shipstone, D.M., Jung, W. & Dupin, J.J. (1988). A study of students' understanding of electricity in five European countries. International Journal of Science Education, 10(3), 303–316.Google Scholar
  79. Smith, J.J.A. & Nel, S.J. (1997). Perceptions of models of electric current held by physical science teachers in South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 93(5), 2002, 5 p.Google Scholar
  80. Tezcan, H. & Günay, S. (2003). Lise kimya öğretiminde laboratuar kullanımına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri (The teachers' opinion about the usage of laboratory in secondary chemistry instruction). Milli Eşitim Vakfı Dergisi, 159, 195–202.Google Scholar
  81. Tveita, J. (1999). Untraditional learning methods helping students to develop the electron model for simple circuits. 9th Symposium of International Organization of Science and Technology Education, 2 (pp. 703–710). Durban, South Africa: University of Durban-Westville.Google Scholar
  82. Viard, J. & Langlois, F.K. (2001). The concept of electrical resistance: How Cassirer's philosophy, and the early developments of electric circuit theory, allow a better understanding of students' learning difficulties. Science & Education, 10, 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  84. Yüksel, S. (2003). Türkiye'de program geliştirme çalışmaları ve sorunları (Curriculum development studies and problems in Turkey). Milli Eğitim Vakfı Dergisi, 159, 120–124.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SogutluTrabzonTurkey

Personalised recommendations