Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 49, Issue 5, pp 1433–1456 | Cite as

Effect of a Diagram on Primary Students’ Understanding About Electric Circuits

  • Christine Margaret PrestonEmail author
Article
  • 252 Downloads

Abstract

This article reports on the effect of using a diagram to develop primary students’ conceptual understanding about electric circuits. Diagrammatic representations of electric circuits are used for teaching and assessment despite the absence of research on their pedagogical effectiveness with young learners. Individual interviews were used to closely analyse Years 3 and 5 (8–11-year-old) students’ explanations about electric circuits. Data was collected from 20 students in the same school providing pre-, post- and delayed post-test dialogue. Students’ thinking about electric circuits and changes in their explanations provide insights into the role of diagrams in understanding science concepts. Findings indicate that diagram interaction positively enhanced understanding, challenged non-scientific views and promoted scientific models of electric circuits. Differences in students’ understanding about electric circuits were influenced by prior knowledge, meta-conceptual awareness and diagram conventions including a stylistic feature of the diagram used. A significant finding that students’ conceptual models of electric circuits were energy rather than current based has implications for electricity instruction at the primary level.

Keywords

Diagrams Electric circuits Primary students Science learning Conceptions Models Representations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Peter Hubber for his helpful comments on a draft version of this paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee, University of Sydney and the NSW Department of Education and Training. Informed consent was obtained from the school principal and parents prior to participant involvement.

References

  1. Ametller, J., & Pinto, R. (2002). Students’ reading of innovative images of energy at secondary school level. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. W. (2007). Perspectives on science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 3–30). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Barlex, D., & Carré, C. (1985). Visual communication in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, D. E. (2010). Students’ conceptions—coherent or fragmented? And what difference does it make?. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, March, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  5. Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve student’s learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapman, S. (2014). Teaching the ‘big ideas’ of electricity at primary level. Primary Science, 135, 5–8.Google Scholar
  7. Cheng, M., & Brown, D. E. (2010). Conceptual resources in self-developed explanatory models: the importance of integrating conscious and intuitive knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 32(17), 2367–2392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng, M. M. W., & Gilbert, J. K. (2015). Students’ visualization of diagrams representing the human circulatory system: the use of spatial isomorphism and representational conventions. International Journal of Science Education, 37(1), 136–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clement, J. J. (2000). Analysis of clinical interviews: foundations and model viability. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 547–589). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, R., Eylon, B., & Ganiel, U. (1983). Potential difference and current in simple electric circuits: A study of students’ concepts. American Journal of Physics, 51(5), 407-412.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Coll, R. K., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education: implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Constable, H., Campbell, B., & Brown, R. (1988a). Sectional drawings from science textbooks: an experimental investigation into pupil’s understanding. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook, M. P. (2006) Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073-1091.Google Scholar
  15. Coskie, T. L., & Davis, K. J. (2008). Encoraging visual literacy. Science and Children, 46(3), 56–57.Google Scholar
  16. diSessa, A. (2004). Meta-representation: naïve competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Etheredge, S., & Rudnitsky, A. (2003). Introducing students to scientific inquiry: how do we know what we know? Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  18. Gillies, R. M., Nichols, K., & Asaduzzaman, K. (2015). The effect of scientific representations on primary students’ development of scientific discourse and conceptual understandings during contemporary inquiry-science. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45(4), 427–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldin, G. A. (2000). A scientific perspective on structured, task-based interviews in mathematics education research. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research and design in mathematics and science education (pp. 517–545). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..Google Scholar
  20. Harlen, W. (2015). Working with the big ideas of science education. Italy: Science Education Program (SEP) of IAP.Google Scholar
  21. Heiser, J., & Tversky, B. (2006). Arrows in comprehending and producing mechanical diagrams. Cognitive Science, 30, 581–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Henderson, G. (1999). Learning with diagrams. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 45(2), 17–25.Google Scholar
  23. Hubber, P. (2015). Electricity, 159-186. In K. Skamp & C. Preston (Eds.), Teaching primary science constructively (5th ed.). South Melbourne: Cengage.Google Scholar
  24. Hubber, P. (2017). Electricity. In K. Skamp & C. Preston (Eds.), Teaching primary science constructively (6th ed.). South Melbourne: Cengage.Google Scholar
  25. Hubber, P., & Tytler, R. (2013). Models and learning in science. In R. Tytler, V. Prain, P. Hubber, & B. Waldrip (Eds.), Constructing representations to learn in science. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Jaakkola, T. N. S., & Veermans, K. (2011). A comparison of students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc..Google Scholar
  28. Kallunki, V. (2009). Active and spontaneous learning in a small group—a case of learning DC-circuit phenomena in the 3rd grade. NorDiNa, 9(2), 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lowe, R. K. (1986). The scientific diagram: is it worth a thousand words? The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 32(2), 7–13.Google Scholar
  30. Lowe, R. K. (1988). “Reading” scientific diagrams: characterising components of skilled performance. Research in Science Education, 18, 112–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lowe, R. K. (1993). Successful instructional diagrams. London: Kogan Page Limited.Google Scholar
  32. Lowe, R. K. (2000). Visual literacy and learning in science. ERIC clearinghouse for science, mathematics and environmental education (pp. 1–2). ERIC Digest, ED463945 Columbus, Ohio: ERIC/CSMEE.Google Scholar
  33. Maharaj-Sharma, R. (2011). What are students’ ideas about the concept of an electric current? A primary school perspective. Caribbean Curriculum, 18, 69–85.Google Scholar
  34. Mathewson, J. H. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: as aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83(1), 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. McTigue, E., & Flowers, A. (2011). Science visual literacy: learner’s perceptions and knowledge of diagrams. The Reading Teacher, 64(8), 578–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McTigue, E. S., & Slough, S. (2010). Student-accessible science texts: elements of design. Reading Psychology, 31, 213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Osborne, R. (1983). Modifying children’s ideas about electric current. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1(1), 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Osbourne, R. J. (1981). Children’s ideas about electric current. New Zealand, Science Teacher, 29, 12–19.Google Scholar
  42. Osborne, R. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (1979). Investigating understanding of basic concepts using an interview-about-instances technique. Research in Science Education, 9, 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Postigo, Y., & López-Manjón, A. (2012). Students’ conceptions of biological images as representational devices. Revista Colombiana de Psicología, 21(2), 265–284.Google Scholar
  44. Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2008). A study of teachers’ perspectives about using multimodal representations of concepts to enhance science learning. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 8(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Preston, C. (2016). Effect of a science diagram on primary students’ understanding about magnets. Research in Science Education, 46(6), 857–877Google Scholar
  46. Roberts, K. L., Norman, R. R., Duke, N. K., Morsink, P., Martin, N. M., & Knight, J. A. (2013). Diagrams, timelines, and tables—oh, my! Fostering graphical literacy. The Reading Teacher, 67(1), 12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schollum, B. W. (1983). Arrows in science diagrams: help or hindrance for pupils? Research in Science Education, 13, 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shepardson, D., & Moje, E. (1994). The nature of fourth graders’ understandings of electric circuits. Science Education, 78(5), 489–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shipstone, D. M. (1984). A study of children’s understanding of electricity in simple DC circuits. European Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shipstone, D. (1985). Electricity in simple circuits. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 291–316). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Shipstone, D. (1988). Pupils’ understanding of simple electrical circuits. Some implications for instruction. Physics Education, 23(2), 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Slough, S. W., & McTigue, E. (2010). Introduction to the integration of verbal and visual information in science texts. Reading Psychology, 31, 206–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Solomon, J. (1985). The pupil’s view of electricity. European Journal of Science Education, 3(3), 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Solomonidou, C., & Kakana, D. (2000). Preschool children’s conceptions about the electric current and the functioning of electric appliances. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 8(1), 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Summers, M., Kruger, C., & Mant, J. (1997). Teaching electricity effectively: a research based guide for primary science. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.Google Scholar
  56. Tippett, C. D. (2016). What recent research on diagrams suggests about learning with rather than from visual representations in science. International Journal of Sciecne Education, 38(5), 725–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tytler, R. (1998). The nature of students’ informal science conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 20(8), 901–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. (2013). Constructing representations to learn in science. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 261–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vosniadou, S. (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 417–452). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Wheeler, A., & Hill, D. (1990). Diagram-ease: why children misinterpet diagrams. The Science Teacher, 57, 58–63.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of SydneyHornsbyAustralia

Personalised recommendations