Addressing Secondary School Students’ Misconceptions About Simple Current Circuits Using the Learning Cycle Approach

  • Kamilah OsmanEmail author


Misconceptions about simple current circuits are prevalent among secondary school students. Various reasons have been identified as sources for the students’ misconceptions. This includes students’ prior knowledge about the concept that affects the learning of new knowledge in the formal classroom setting. The literature suggests that with an effective teaching approach misconceptions could be reduced. One of the possible approaches is through the learning cycle approach. This study used a quasi-experimental approach in which two groups of Form 3 (equivalent to grade 9) students (15 year old) from three classes consisting of 78 students from one school were assigned into experimental and comparison groups. The experimental group consisted of 40 students and the comparison group had 38 students. After 3 weeks of instruction using the learning cycle approach, students in the experimental group had significantly improved their understanding and had reduced their misconceptions about simple current circuits.


Learning cycle Misconception Simple current circuits Secondary school students 


  1. Arnold, M., & Miller, R. (1987). Being constructive: An alternative approach to the teaching of introductory ideas in electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 9(3), 553–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ates, S. (2005). The effects of learning cycle on college students’ understandings of different aspects in resistive dc circuits. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 9(4), 1–20.Google Scholar
  3. Barke, H. D., Hazari, A., & Yitbarek, S. (2009). Students’ misconceptions and how to overcome them. In H. D. Barke (Ed.), Misconceptions in chemistry: Addressing perceptions in chemical education (pp. 21–35). Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beh, K. L., & Tong, S. F. (2006). Competency in electric circuit connections among college students: Differences between high and low achievers in physics. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on University Learning and Teaching, Concord Hotel, Shah Alam, March 14–15, 2006.Google Scholar
  5. Beh, K. L., & Tong, S. F. (2004). The developmental changes in conceptual understanding and problem-solving in the domain of electric circuits among students of various ages and different academic abilities. Unpublished research report, Institute of Research, Development and Commercialisation (IRDC), Universiti Teknologi Mara, Shah Alam, Malaysia.Google Scholar
  6. Beisenherz, P., & Dantonio, M. (1996). Using the learning cycle to teach physical science: A hands-on approach for middle grades. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  7. Bilgin, I., & Geban, O. (2006). The effect of cooperative learning approach based on conceptual change condition on students’ understanding of chemical equilibrium concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryce, T., & MacMillan, K. (2005). Encouraging conceptual change: The use of bridging analogies in the teaching of action-reaction forces and the ‘at rest’ condition in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 737–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlton, K. (1999). Teaching electric current and electrical potential. Physic Education, 34(6), 341–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caleon, I., & Subramanian, R. (2010). Development and application of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students’ understanding of waves. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 939–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chambers, S. K., & Andre, T. (1997). Gender, prior knowledge, interest, and experience in electricity and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chu, H. E., Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2009). A stratified study of students’ understanding of basic optics concepts in different contexts using two-tier multiple-choice items. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(3), 253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chinn, C., & Brewer, W. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheung, D., Ma, H. J., & Yang, J. (2009). Teachers’ misconceptions about the effects of addition of more reactants or products on chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(6), 1111–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Choi, K., & Chang, H. (2004). The effects of using electric circuit model in science education to facilitate learning electric related concepts. Journal of Korean Physical Society, 44(6), 1341–1348.Google Scholar
  16. Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Driver, R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students’ conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10(1), 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engelhardt, P. V., & Beichner, R. J. (2004). Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. American Journal of Physics, 72(1), 98–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fredette, N., & Lochhead, J. (1980). Student conceptions of simple circuits. The Physics Teacher, 18(3), 194–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10(1), 61–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta- analysis of instructional interventions from reading education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 116–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jaakkola, T., & Nurmi, S. (2008). Fostering elementary school students’ understanding of simple electricity by combining simulation and laboratory activities. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 24(4), 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kärrqvist, C. (1985). The development of concepts by means of dialogues centered on experiments. In R. Duit, W. Jung, & C. von Rhöneck (Eds.), Aspects of understanding electricity (pp. 215–226). Kiel, Germany: IPN.Google Scholar
  25. Küçüközer, H., & Demirci, N. (2008). Pre-service and in-service physics teachers’ ideas about simple electric circuits. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4(3), 303–311.Google Scholar
  26. Kuçukozer, H., & Kocakulah, S. (2007). Secondary school students’ misconceptions about simple electric circuits. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(1), 101–115.Google Scholar
  27. Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  28. Lawson, A. E. (2001). Using the learning cycle to teach biology concepts and reasoning patterns. Journal of Biological Education, 35(4), 165–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marek, E. A. (2008). Why the learning cycle? Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(3), 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Minstrell, J. (1992). Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Neidderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 110–128). Kiel, Germany: IPN.Google Scholar
  32. Nahum, T. L., Naaman, R. M., Hofstein, A., & Taber, K. S. (2010). Teaching and learning the concept of chemical bonding. Studies in Science Education, 46(2), 179–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Osborne, R. (1981). Children’s ideas about electric circuits. New Zealand Science Teacher, 29, 12–19.Google Scholar
  34. Osborne, R. (1983). Towards modifying children’s ideas about electric current. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1(1), 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peşman, H., & Eryılmaz, A. (2010). Development of a three-tier test to assess misconceptions about simple electric circuits. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(3), 208–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Renner, J. M., Abraham, M. R., & Birnie, H. H. (1986). The occurrence of assimilation and accommodation in learning high school physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(7), 619–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ronen, M., & Eliahu, M. (2000). Simulation—a bridge between theory and reality: The case of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 16(1), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sencar, S., & Eryılmaz, A. (2004). Factors mediating the effect of gender on ninth-grade Turkish students’ misconceptions concerning electric circuit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 603–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shipstone, D. M. (1984). A study of children’s understanding of electricity in simple D.C. circuits. European Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taslidere, E. (2013). Effect of conceptual change oriented instruction on students’ conceptual understanding and decreasing their misconception in DC electric circuit. Creative Education, 4(4), 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tomita, M. K. (2008). Examining the influence of formative assessment on conceptual accumulation and conceptual change. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (3343949).Google Scholar
  42. Treagust, D. F., & Duit, R. (2008). Conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 297–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turkmen, H. (2006). How should science be taught by using learning cycle approach in elementary schools? Elementary Education Online, 5(2), 1–15.Google Scholar
  44. Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 177–210). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Wang, T., & Andre, T. (1991). Conceptual change text versus traditional text and application questions versus no question in learning about electricity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16(2), 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yilmaz, H., & Cavas, H. (2006). The effect of the 4-E learning cycle method on students’ understanding of electricity. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 3(1), 1–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Air Merah Secondary SchoolKulim KedahMalaysia

Personalised recommendations