Abstract
Models are important both in the development of physics itself and in teaching physics. Historically, the consensus models of physics have come to embody particular ontological assumptions and epistemological commitments. Educators have generally assumed that the consensus models of physics, which have stood the test of time, will also work well as teaching models, and for many topics this assumption is at least unproblematic and in many cases productive. However, in the case of electric circuits the consensus models are highly abstract and consequently inaccessible to beginning learners. Certain historically derived analogues for the consensus models are accepted in texts, but these are demonstrably ineffective for helping learners grasp the fundamental concepts of electric circuits. While awareness of other models circulates informally in the teaching community, these are not well documented in the science education literature and rarely referred to in authoritative texts, possibly because the models do not share the ontological assumptions and epistemological commitments that characterise consensus models. Consequently these models have not been subjected to a disciplined critique of their effectiveness for teaching purposes. In this paper I use criteria drawn from the science education literature to reflect on why I have found particular models valuable in teaching electric circuits. These criteria contrast with the epistemological and ontological features that characterise the consensus models of science, and my reflection leads me to attend explicitly to the ways in which meanings are created within physics. This suggests that all models, whether consensus models or not, can be used more knowingly for important educational ends.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The analogy does not appear in later editions of this text (see Halliday et al. 1997).
References
Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649–672.
Feynmann, R., et al (1964) The Feynmann Lectures in Physics, Volume II - The Electromagnetic Field. Bombay, India: Addison-Wesley.
Gentner, D., & Gentner, D. R. (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 99–129). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gianello, L., Dick, B., & McClintock Collective (1988). Getting into gear: Gender inclusive teaching strategies in science. Canberra, ACT: Curriculum Development Centre.
Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998a). Models in explanations, part 1: Horses for courses? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83–97.
Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998b). Models in explanations, part 2: Whose voice, whose ears? International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 187–203.
Gunstone, R., McKittrick, B., & Mulhall, P. (2007). Physics teachers’ perceptions of the difficulty of teaching of electricity. In press.
Halliday, D., & Resnick R. (1988). Fundamentals of physics (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Halliday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (1997). Fundamentals of physics (5th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Modelling in science lessons: Are there better ways to learn with models? School Science and Mathematics, 98(8), 420–429.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026.
Hewitt, P. (1987). Conceptual physics. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Heywood, D. (2002). The place of analogies in science education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 233–246.
Kane, J., & Sternheim, M. (1988). Physics (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science & Education, 12(1), 91–113.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lofts, G., & Evergreen, M. (2007). Science quest 3 (3rd ed.). Milton, Queensland: Jacaranda Wiley.
Lofts, G., et al. (2004). Jacaranda physics 1. Milton, Queensland: Jacaranda Wiley.
McClintock Collective, & various authors. (1989). Classroom practice. Australian Science Teachers Journal (Special Issue on Gender Inclusive Science Teaching), 35(3), 50–74.
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.
Mulhall, P., McKittrick, B., & Gunstone, R. (2001). A perspective on the resolution of confusions in the teaching of electricity. Research in Science Education, 31, 575–587.
Nardelli, D. (2006). Science alive 2. Milton, Queensland: Jacaranda Wiley.
New South Wales Board of Studies. (2002). Physics stage 6 syllabus. Sydney, NSW: NSW Board of Studies.
New South Wales Board of Studies. (2003). Syllabus for science years 7–10. Sydney, NSW: NSW Board of Studies.
Nuffield Chelsea Curriculum Trust. (1993). Nuffield primary science: Electricity and magnetism key stage 2 teachers’ guide. London: Collins Educational for Nuffield Chelsea Curriculum Trust.
Ohanian, H. (1994). Principles of physics. New York: Norton.
Serway, R., & Faughn, J. (2000). College physics (5th ed.). Orlando, FL: Saunders/Harcourt.
Spencer, R. (1999, 13/4/1999). A ridiculously brief history of electricity and magnetism, mostly from E. T. Whittaker’s A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity. Available: http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/phys442/node4.html.
Stannard, P., & Williamson, K. (2006). Science world 9 (3rd ed.). South Yarra, VIC: MacMillan.
Stocklmayer, S. M., & Treagust, D. F. (1994). A historical analysis of electric currents in textbooks: A century of influence on physics education. Science and Education, 3, 131–154.
Stocklmayer, S. M., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Images of electricity: How do novices and experts model electric current? International Journal of Science Education, 18(2), 163–178.
Storen, R., & Martine, R. (2004). Nelson physics units 1 and 2 (3rd ed.). Southbank, VIC: Thomson/Nelson.
Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. West & L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 211–231). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Treagust, D. F., Duit, R., Joslin, P., & Lindauer, I. (1992). Science teachers’ use of analogies: Observations from classroom practice. International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 413–422.
van Driel, J., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2003). Physics Victorian certificate of education study design. East Melbourne, Victoria: Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2005). Victorian essential learning standards: Science. East Melbourne, Victoria: Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
Weicek, C., Zealey, B., et al. (2005). Physics in context – The forces of life preliminary (2nd ed.). South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertheim, M. (1995). Pythagoras’ trousers: God, physics, and the gender wars. New York: Times Books/Random House.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hart, C. Models in Physics, Models for Physics Learning, and Why the Distinction may Matter in the Case of Electric Circuits. Res Sci Educ 38, 529–544 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9060-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9060-y