Abstract
Although Ohm’s law contains various possibilities in teaching and learning scientific inquiry, it is rare for students to experience an authentic inquiry. Thus, we designed an open-ended in-depth inquiry about Ohm’s law and made students conduct it. To do this, we developed a laboratory activity for students following a standard method of Ohm’s law experiment. After that, we induced them to discover the faults and difficulties in the existing inquiry method. And then, an open-ended in-depth inquiry experiment was conducted to solve the identified problems. Students considered various experimental equipment such as a Wheatstone bridge, a variable resistor, and graphite. They also developed to investigate contact resistance, device resistance, and thermal noise using creative techniques such as the 4-point probe method. We examined students’ learning through the activity and their recognition of it. As a result of the open inquiry, students can make various creative efforts to obtain reliable theoretical and experimental results. They showed diverse modeling activities like scientists and thought positively about the inquiry. This study expects science learning to be transformed into “doing science” to help students foster not only a broader understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry (NOSI) but a confirmation of the nature of scientific knowledge (NOSK).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Not applicable.
References
Atherton, T. (1986). A history of Ohm’s law. Electronics & Power, 32(6), 467–472.
Black, M. (1962). Models and Metaphors. Cornell University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.
Byun, T., & Lee, G. (2014). Why students still can’t solve physics problems after solving over 2000 problems. American Journal of Physics, 82(9), 906–913.
Cresswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
Erduran, S., & Duschl, R. A. (2004). Interdisciplinary characterizations of models and the nature of chemical knowledge in the classroom. Studies in Science Education, 40(1), 105–138.
Geddes, L. A., & Geddes, L. E. (1998). How did Georg Simon Ohm do it?[Ohm's law]. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 17(3), 107–109.
Giere, R. (1991). Understand Scientific Reasoning. Holt, Renehart, and Winston Inc.
Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations, Part 1: Horses for courses? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83–97.
Glaser, R. (1983). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39(2), 93.
Griffiths, D. J. (1999). Introduction to electrodynamic. Prentice Hall.
Ha, S., & Kim, M. (2020). Challenges of designing and carrying out laboratory experiments about Newton’s second law: The case of Korean gifted students. Science & Education, 29, 1389–1416.
Halloun, I. A. (2004). Modeling theory for paradigmatic evolution. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual meeting of the Southern African association for research in mathematics, science and technology education.
Halloun, I. A. (2006). Modeling theory in science education. Springer.
Halloun, I. A. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education, 16, 653–697.
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. Free Press.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.
Kim, M., Cheong, Y., & Song, J. (2016). An analysis of the meanings of physics equations with a focus on the ontological and epistemological dimensions. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 66(1), 50–60.
Kipnis, N. (2009). A law of physics in the classroom: The case of Ohm’s law. Science & Education, 18(3–4), 349–382.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
McDermott, L. C., & Shaffer, P. S. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student understanding. American Journal of Physics, 60(11), 994–1003.
Nam, J.-H., Kwak, K.-H., Jang, K.-H., & Hand, B. (2008). The implementation of argumentation using Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) in middle school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(8), 922–936.
NGSS. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academy Press.
NRC. (1996). National science education standards. The National Academy Press.
NRC. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academy Press.
O’Sullivan, C. T. (1980). Ohm’s law and the definition of resistance. Physics Education, 15(4), 237–239.
OECD. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework. Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2009-assessment-framework_9789264062658-en. Accessed 1 Feb 2022.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., … Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61.
Podolsky, B., & Denman, H. H. (1966). A macroscopic approach to Ohm’s law. American Journal of Physics, 34(9), 814–816.
Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground – A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 161–197.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The concept of the structure of a discipline. Educational Record, 43(3), 197–205.
Schwartz, R. S. (2004). Epistemological views in authentic science practice: A cross-discipline comparison of scientists’ views of nature of science and scientific inquiry. (Doctor). Oregon State University.
Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. (2008). What scientists say: Scientists’ views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 727–771.
Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). A series of misrepresentations: A response to Allchin’s whole approach to assessing nature of science understandings. Science Education, 96(4), 685–692.
Smythe, W. R. (1953). Current flow in cylinders. Journal of Applied Physics, 24(1), 70–73.
Swann, W. F. G. (1951). The Teaching of Physics. American Journal of Physics, 19(3), 182–187.
Szott, A. (2014). Open-ended Laboratory investigations in a high school physics course: The difficulties and rewards of implementing inquiry-based learning in a physics lab. The Physics Teacher, 52(1), 17–21.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the students that made this research work possible.
Funding
This work was supported by a research grant from the Kongju National University in 2021. This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 2021R1G1A1003349).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, M., Ha, S. Challenging Modeling for Ohm’s Law through Open-Ended In-depth Inquiry. Sci & Educ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00417-8
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00417-8