International Journal

of Pedagogies and Learning

1(2), pp. 3-17. October 2005

Problems of Learning Fundamentals

of Semiconductor Electronics
Farrah Fayyaz, Department of Telecommunication Engineering, National University
of Computer and Emerging Sciences, Pakistan (farrah.fayyaz@nu.edu.pk)
M. Ashraf Iqbal, Department of Computer Science, Lahore University of
Management Sciences, Pakistan (aiqbal@lums.edu.pk)
Yasser Hashmi, Department of Social Sciences, Lahore University of Management
Sciences, Pakistan (yasser@lums.edu.pk)
This article has been anonymously peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in the International Journal of
Pedagogies and Learning, an international, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on issues and trends in pedagogies
and learning in national and international contexts. ISSN 1833-4105.

Abstract
Semiconductor theory is a core course in the field of electrical and computer
engineering in which students learn the fundamental concepts of electronic devices
like diodes and transistors. A solid understanding of these concepts requires a
thorough comprehension of the quality and quantity of charge carriers and of the
different mechanisms by which these charges can move and contribute to the flow of
current in a semiconductor. There are a number of serious issues that can cause
hindrances in the meaningful understanding of these concepts. Initially the students
are familiar with only one type of charge carrier that can flow i.e., electrons.
Subsequently they learn about another charge that flows but that has only a virtual
existence, which is actually the absence of an electron. It is difficult for students to
appreciate the difference between these two distinct charges. In this research, we seek
to identify the hindrances faced by the students in understanding these concepts and to
explain (using theories of the psychology of learning) why such difficulties arise even
if one has all the prerequisite knowledge as well as the motivation to apply that
knowledge. Concept mapping is used as a tool to find the possible missing links in a
students knowledge structure. Our claims are based on concept maps developed by
the students and structured interviews conducted with students as well as with
instructors teaching the course under review.

Introduction
Understanding the processes that take place inside the human mind while it is
thinking and learning has remained an elusive exercise, mostly because of lack of
powerful research tools and techniques. Now, because of recent advances in various
branches of science dealing with the mind and the brain, it has become possible to
understand better the processes of thinking and learning, the neural processes that
occur during thought and learning and the capacity to create new knowledge
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000; Davis, 1999;
Kolari & Savander-Ranne, 2004; Mintzes, Wandersee & Novak, 1998). 30 years ago,
educators paid little attention to the work of cognitive scientists, and researchers in the
newly emerging field of cognitive science worked isolated from real classrooms.
Today cognitive scientists are spending more time working with teachers in other
fields, testing and modifying their theories in actual classrooms (Castronova, 2002;
3

International Journal
of Pedagogies and Learning

1(2), pp. 3-17. October 2005

Iqbal, Hashmi & Nadeem, 2005; Krantz, 1999; Mintzes, Wandersee & Novak, 2000;
Novak, 1998; Treagust, Duit & Fraser, 1996; Turns, Adams, Linse, Martin & Atman,
2004).
As information and knowledge are growing at a far more rapid rate than ever before in
the history of humankind, the goal of education is redefined as helping students to
develop the intellectual tools and learning strategies so as to empower them to become
self-sustaining and lifelong learners. In order to achieve this goal, it is important to
address a number of fundamental issues: a) Why do students encounter difficulties in
learning and in utilising and organising their knowledge? b) How can their
understanding and knowledge be assessed in a better way? c) What measures can be
undertaken to promote learning and innovation? In order to address these issues and to
improve educational research and evaluation, we at the Lahore University of
Management Sciences (LUMS) have attempted to comprehend the various processes
that supervene when students are grappling with novel concepts and complications.
This paper is the direct outcome of our research efforts at LUMS to understand
problems of learning in certain core courses in various fields at the tertiary level of
education (Iqbal & Alvi, 2004; Iqbal & Hashmi, 2005; Iqbal & Tahir, 2003; Iqbal,
Hashmi & Nadeem, 2005; Nadeem, Iqbal & Hasan, 2005; Nazar & Iqbal, 2005).
The field of electronics covers a wide range of specialty areas, including audio and
video systems, digital computers, communication systems, instrumentation and
automatic controls. Each of these areas has special categories; however, all these
application categories have something in common: that is, they all utilise electronic
devices like transistors, diodes, integrated circuits and various special purpose
semiconductor devices. Regardless of ones specialisation, a thorough knowledge of
the device theory is a vital prerequisite in understanding and applying developments
in electronics (Bogart, Beasley & Rico, 2004). The key concepts that have to be
understood in order to understand semiconductors are the quality and quantity of
charge carriers and the different mechanisms by which these charges can move. This
paper is an attempt to understand the challenges faced by learners in acquiring these
concepts and to elaborate a methodology for describing stages in the process of that
learning. We have taken help from various theories of learning originating from
cognitive psychology. In particular, we focus on the learning theory of Ausubel
(Ausubel, Novak & Hanesian, 1978).
An important principle in Ausubels cognitive learning theory is meaningful learning,
and it takes place when the learner chooses to relate new knowledge to prior
knowledge non-arbitrarily and substantively (Novak, 1998). Its quality is also
dependent upon the conceptual richness of the new material to be learned. By richness
one means the number of new concepts added and also the number of propositions
connecting new and old concepts added to the network of knowledge. This can be
contrasted with rote learning, which occurs when the learner memorises new
information without relating it to prior knowledge, or when learning material has no
relationship to prior knowledge (Novak, 1998). The key processes by which meanings
are constructed are cognitive assimilation, integration and differentiation of concepts.
Cognitive assimilation requires that knowledge keeps on growing in meaning over the
lifetime of a learner developing full functional meaning of the concept through
progressive differentiation, which leads to quantitative as well as qualitative
integration of knowledge into a conceptual framework.

International Journal
of Pedagogies and Learning

1(2), pp. 3-17. October 2005

Another important aspect of meaningful learning results when some higher order
concept subsumes lower order concepts that are more specific and less general. For
example, in an extrinsic semiconductor the current flows through free electrons and
holes that move through valence electrons. Here the superordinate concept is electric
current, and the two subordinate concepts are flow through free and bonded electrons.
While learning about the flow of current in semiconductors, only the concept that the
flow of current is the directional flow of free charges remains attractive to the learner.
This also gives rise to a problem that previous knowledge sometimes offers
hindrances in acquiring new knowledge as the mind tries to adhere to the previously
learned concepts.
The key hypothesis in this paper is that each bottleneck in learning the fundamentals
of semiconductor electronics can be psychologically described as one of the processes
in Ausubels theory as described above, and the overall aim of this paper is to
describe the entire process of learning semiconductor theory as a series of
psychological processes that can be mapped out using the concept map methodology.
The focus of our research is primarily on the knowledge state of the learner and how
this transforms with instructions. Variables such as age, cognitive development,
gender or sociocultural backgrounds of the learners were not a part of our
investigative framework. To comment briefly on these, we have presumed cognitive
development to be identical across the board. Most psychological theorists e.g.,
Ausubel (Ausubel, Novak & Hanesian, 1978) or Piaget (1926) suggest that there are
no qualitative differences in cognitive functions of adults who have progressed to the
formal operations stage of mental development. Similarly, although age varied across
the sample of learners in our study, we have assumed that, although it may be
correlated with different knowledge states, it is not a causal factor. The same cannot
be said of sociocultural variables. There may be many situations in which
sociocultural concept maps will interact with concept maps in other domains of
knowledge. This merits further investigation. Similarly, gender also merits further
investigation as it may interact with learning either indirectly (through sociocultural
variables) or more controversially through different gender specific cognitive
functions.
This paper is organised as follows. In the next section of the paper, we discuss the
concept map technique for describing a target knowledge structure and also the actual
state of a students knowledge. The third section concentrates on the developmental
stages by which a student may acquire the target concept map. The progressive
conceptual development is marked by a number of learning bottlenecks that are
described in the fourth section. Each of these is a stage in learning where a particular
type of challenge is faced. The advantage of having a theory of learning is that these
bottlenecks can be described in the language of psychology and thus teaching
methodologies can be developed to overcome these bottlenecks. The paper concludes
in the fifth and final section.

Research Methods
Research in science education has suggested that the thorough acquisition of science
concepts is dependent upon meaningful understanding and correctly identifying links
among various related concepts in a particular discipline. Anyone who is good at
defining every concept and solving various problems but is unable to integrate the
concepts into a well-structured knowledge base is not using the knowledge
5

International Journal
of Pedagogies and Learning

1(2), pp. 3-17. October 2005

meaningfully (Novak, 1998). Initially a detailed concept map that should be present in
the mind of a learner was developed to identify the various building blocks of
fundamental concepts of semiconductor electronics. The concept map was later used
as a tool for identifying missing and faulty links in the minds of the learners with
whom this research was conducted.
The research results that are documented in this paper are derived from a group of 50
people, who included three instructors, four senior students and 43 sophomore
students who were currently studying the course reported here and who had not yet
studied any advanced application of these devices. Also, a questionnaire was
developed that aimed to test in a descriptive manner various key concepts of learning
the fundamentals of semiconductor electronics; these 50 people were asked to
complete this questionnaire. Five students were asked to construct a concept map that
covered the answers to all the questions asked in the questionnaire. Three of these
concept maps are shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3 presented below. 20 of these people
were also asked to answer all these questions doing think aloud and their thought
processes were monitored and tape recorded. This made it more convenient to
compare their knowledge structure with the detailed concept map developed for the
research. The think aloud protocol helped in ascertaining the thought processes of
the people answering these questions that was not possible by looking only at the
answers to the questionnaires. Both the misconceptions and the factors leading to
those misconceptions that appear in the protocol contributed to the results of the
research.
Figure 1: Concept map constructed by one of the learners (some of the faulty
concepts are shown dotted and wrong linking phrases are shown in italics)

International Journal
of Pedagogies and Learning

1(2), pp. 3-17. October 2005

Figure 2: Concept map constructed by one of the learners (some of the faulty
concepts are shown dotted and wrong linking phrases are shown in italics)

Figure 3: Concept map constructed by one of the learners (some of the faulty
concepts are shown dotted and wrong linking phrases are shown in italics)

Developmental Stages of the Concept Map

The concept map in Figure 4 was initially developed for this research and the
concepts shown in this figure were taught to a group of beginners. It was observed
that they had difficulty understanding many of the concepts because the knowledge of
7

International Journal
of Pedagogies and Learning

1(2), pp. 3-17. October 2005

atomic structure was not included (in this figure) which was needed to explain various
distinguishing properties of conductors and semiconductors. For example, if a free
electron leaves behind a hole in a semiconductor then why are there no holes in a
conductor with a large number of free electrons? Also, because of the lack of
knowledge of atomic structure the learners were biased to think that if the
conductivity of semiconductors increases with temperature then the conductors should
exhibit the same behaviour.
Figure 4: First stage of the development of the complete concept map

The atomic structure concepts were then added in the concept map shown in Figure 5
to accommodate the above mentioned problems and again those concepts were
presented to the same group. Now a confusion was created by the movement of hole
as whether the hole moves because of a free electron filling it up or a valence electron,
hence also creating a problem in differentiating between hole movement and the
concept of recombination. Again the concept map was modified to highlight the
difference between hole movement and recombination. Also the linear and
exponential behaviours of the conductors and semiconductors with temperature
change were differentiated. When the modified concept map was presented again to
the same group of learners, the concept of different quality and quantity of charges
present in doped semiconductors compared to the pure semiconductors created the
confusion, such as whether the hole created by breaking of a covalent bond is the
same as the hole introduced by the doping material and whether the fixed charges are
present in the semiconductor material or not and, if there are any fixed charges
present, then how can their quality be differentiated. The final concept map that
incorporates all these conceptual aspects is then constructed as shown in Figure 6.

International Journal
of Pedagogies and Learning

1(2), pp. 3-17. October 2005

Figure 5: Second stage of the development of the complete concept map (the
concept of atomic structure is included)

Figure 6: The final concept map used for this research (comparison of hole
produced by breaking of a covalent bond and introduced by an impurity atom,
and the concept of different quality and quantity of charges present in doped
semiconductors are included; the effect of temperature on conductivity of
materials is also incorporated)

International Journal
of Pedagogies and Learning

1(2), pp. 3-17. October 2005

Results, Bottlenecks and Analysis

In this section we examine various learning problems identified which are common in
the majority of the learners. These problems became apparent during the think aloud
protocols and structured interviews. In each problem we describe the key issues in
academic language and then reinterpret them in terms of one of the standard
theoretical challenges of learning.
Difference between conductors and semiconductors
The study of electronic devices begins with the study of the materials from which
these devices are constructed. Knowledge of the principles of material composition, at
the level of the fundamental structure of matter, is an important prerequisite because
our ultimate concern is to predict and control the flow of current in electronic devices
(Bogart et al., 2004). When the learners were asked to distinguish between conductors
and semiconductors, 43 out of 50 learners differentiated between a conductor and the
semiconductor on the basis of the difference in the atomic structure of both materials
in terms of bonding of electrons. When they were prompted that free electrons in
semiconductor leave behind a hole so why a free electron does not create a hole in a
conductor, 24 answered that there are also holes created by free electrons in a
conductor, but they are just never mentioned (Figure 1). 19 out of 43 learners
explained it in terms of energy bands and stated that the energy levels of valence and
conduction bands in conductors are overlapping and hence a conducting electron in a
conductor leaves behind no hole. Five out of 50 explained the difference between
conductors and semiconductors based on their temperature dependent behavior.
According to them the semiconductor is a material whose resistance decreases with
temperature and the conductor is a material whose resistance increases with
temperature. This group of students could state only a difference between these
materials but without any reference to the atomic structure which gives rise to this
regularity. Similarly, four out of 50 answered that a conductor is a pure material and
semiconductor is an impure conductor because a semiconductor starts behaving like a
conductor when an impurity is added to it. They think of a semiconductor as p-type
and n-type semiconductors only. Again the reason for this problem is that their
concepts of conductors and semiconductors are not linked to concepts of atomic
structures.
These results indicate a number of psychological learning difficulties. For a large
group of learners, the concept seems to have been rote learned and as such they are
unable to carry out deductive thinking based on their prior knowledge. There are also
some key propositions, missing specifically those that determine when a hole will or
will not be created by the movement of an electron. Finally their prior knowledge of
atomic structure, effect of temperature and atomic charge is not well integrated. All
these difficulties become visible when the concept map of the learner is constructed
by a structured interview and think aloud protocol.
Flow of current
The set of concepts mentioned in Section A supports an important idea of the various
types of flow of current. Initially the learners are aware of only the current through the
conductor. It was found that, even after formally learning semiconductor theory, they
adhere to the concept of current flow mechanism in conductors. The concept that flow
of current is a directional flow of free charges remains attractive to students. When the
learners were asked to define the flow of current, 49 out of 50 learners answered that

10

International Journal
of Pedagogies and Learning

1(2), pp. 3-17. October 2005

it is the directional flow of free electrons only (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3). The
key challenge here in terms of learning theory is that the full target concept map for
the previous section should allow a subsumption of the concept of flow of current into
a higher order concept in which current is possible via the movement of both the
electrons and the holes.
Hole definition, quality and existence
All the learners defined hole as the vacancy created in an atom by an electron that
becomes free. 43 out of 50 learners suggested that because this vacancy is the
deficiency of an electron so there must be a positive charge on the atom with a hole
(Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3). Moreover, because of the concept that a hole is
created by an electron getting free, 33 out of 50 learners thought that there must be
large number of holes in a conductor because it has a large number of free electrons
(Figure 1). This is essentially an example of a missing concept. The various properties
of this concept are arrived at via propositions learnt earlier. The challenge for the
learner is to collect these sets of properties in long-term memory under a concept
label. The difference between the two holes (one generated by the breaking of a
covalent bond in pure semiconductor, and the other by the addition of an accepter
impurity) is not given much emphasis in most of the textbooks (see Box 1). If the two
holes are distinctly named (as a doping hole and a generation hole) then it may
become easier for the learner to understand and distinguish between the two concepts.
Box 1: Some difficult concepts about the nature of hole and fixed charges in a
semiconductor
1. A hole created by thermal ionization in a semiconductor atom has a
positive charge. The hole introduced by a trivalent impurity atom has no
charge and becomes a negatively charged ion after the hole is filled by
some neighboring semiconductor atom electron which acquires positive
charge after losing one of its electrons. Thus we can say that a neutral hole
does transform into a positively charged hole. This phenomenon produces
two types of charged ions in a p-type semiconductor in which one of them
appears mobile and the other is fixed. (Harris, 1991, Figure 6)
2. Similarly, an n-type semiconductor has electrons as mobile charges and
positive ions as fixed charges. (Harris, 1991, Figure 6)
3. These fixed charges, also known as bound charges are distributed in the
material and are just uncovered in the depletion region. (Harris, 1991,
Figure 6)
4. There are no holes in the conductor because the energy levels of
conduction band and valence band are overlapping in a conductor. (Harris,
1991)
Bound charges
The misconception that holes that exist within atoms that have a vacancy always have
a positive charge leads to another incorrect understanding of the concept that a
trivalent impurity atom (with a built in hole) is positively charged (Figure 2) and
becomes neutral after the hole is filled with an electron. When the learners were given
a description about these negative fixed charges (Box 1), 40 out of 50 learners
suggested that they are present only in a depletion region when diffusion occurs and
11

International Journal
of Pedagogies and Learning

1(2), pp. 3-17. October 2005

electrons from the n-type semiconductor enter the p-type semiconductor and others
suggested that these negative charges must also be mobile as it is a negative charge
and negative charges can move. Similarly, when asked about the charge on the
covalently bonded pentavalent impurity atom, 25 learners answered that because a
covalently bonded pentavalent impurity atom has nine electrons in its valence shell
before giving away one of its electrons, so it is negatively charged with nine electrons
and becomes neutral after releasing one of its electrons (Figure 2). The rest of the
learners suggested that it is neutral initially, and gains a positive charge after giving
away one of its electrons. When these learners were asked to differentiate between a
positive ion with a hole and a positive ion created by a pentavalent impurity atom
(Figure 6), 40 out of 50 learners answered that they are the same and the remaining
learners suggested that it is a bound charge and had no idea that this fixed charge is
always present throughout the n-type material and not only in the depletion region in a
pn junction (Box 1).
Some of the learners suggested that the recombination occurs across a pn junction
due to diffusion of charges, which gives rise to bound charges in the depletion region
in a pn junction. The inability to understand all of the above mentioned charges
present in a doped semiconductor material limits the knowledge of the learners.
Specifically they have no understanding of neutral and positively charged holes and
mobile and immobile charges (Figure 6). They relate the concept of fixed charged
ions with only the depletion region (inside a pn junction) where these fixed charges
are uncovered and shown in diagrams in their textbooks. Here the key issue is
incorrect prior knowledge hindering acquisition of new knowledge. Each of the
problems described above consisted of incorrect propositional links deduced from
undeveloped concepts. Thus the challenge here is to develop prior knowledge to the
point that it supports the correct propositions and the removal of incorrect
propositions.
Hole movement and recombination
It is important to appreciate that the concept of hole as a mobile carrier of positive
charge is just a heuristic to describe a more complex motion of assembly of bonded
valence electrons. A full description would require the use of quantum mechanics;
however, for the sake of simplicity most textbooks describe this phenomenon in terms
of classical mechanics in which the hole is regarded as just a mobile positive charge
carrier (Gray, 1967). This translation into classical mechanics does not support the
intuition that allows the learner to integrate the concept of hole into the preexisting
concept map.
The learners were asked to define recombination and explain how a hole moves in a
semiconductor material (Box 2). All of them defined that the recombination occurs
whenever a free electron fills up the hole and the hole movement occurs when an
electron fills up the hole and creates a deficiency of an electron in some other atom
(Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3). In think aloud, when they were asked to
differentiate between the two phenomena, half of them suggested that the
recombination results in hole movement (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3) and the
rest suggested that when an electron from a valence shell moves to fill the hole, it is
called hole movement and when some free moving electron releases its energy to fall
in the hole, this is recombination. When these learners were prompted to suggest
whether the electron moving from valence band to fill the hole becomes free while

12

International Journal
of Pedagogies and Learning

1(2), pp. 3-17. October 2005

moving to the other atom, they all agreed to it, which in fact leads to almost the same
misconception that the recombination results in hole movement.
Box 2: Some concepts about the hole movement in a semiconductor
1. When an electron makes a transition from the valence band to the
conduction band, it leaves a vacancy, called a hole. Another electron in
the nearby valence band (after acquiring some energy) can move to fill the
hole, thereby creating a hole in its current position. This new hole can be
filled by yet another valence electron, and so on. As this process
continues, the hole migrates through the semiconductor material. (Benson,
1991)
2. If a conduction band electron falls into a hole, this does not contribute
current flow[;] instead this results in the cancellation of the two charges as
the electron-hole pair is destroyed and recombination is said to have
occurred. (Bogart et al., 2004, Figure 6)
3. Mobility of a hole in a semiconductor material is slightly less than the
mobility of free electrons (Sedra & Smith, 2004) because the mobility of
free electrons is due to electrons with higher energy levels than those of
valence electrons.
In response to the question Why do we dope a semiconductor?, the think aloud
response was that the doping increases the amount of charge carriers in a material,
hence increasing the conductivity of a material. When asked about how an n-type
semiconductor differs from a p-type semiconductor, they answered that an n-type
semiconductor has a large number of free electrons as current carriers and a p-type
semiconductor has a large number of holes as current carriers. Finally when asked
how, if the number of free electrons is less than the number of holes in a p-type
semiconductor, the conductivity is increased, because of the misconception of hole
flow because of conduction electrons 45 out of the 50 learners suggested that in fact
a p-type semiconductor has free electrons and holes in equal number and its just that
in n-type semiconductors electrons flow only within the conduction band and in ptype semiconductors the free electrons hop from atom to atom to constitute the current
flow. This misconception also leads to the confusion in the concept of minority and
majority carriers in an n-type and p-type semiconductor. This also gives way to the
incorrect distinguishing feature of p-type and n-type semiconductors being based on
the difference of movement of free electrons, thus also mixing up the concept of
recombination.
It was hard for the learners to think of an electron leaving its atom and moving to
some other atom without jumping into the conduction band. The same misconception
forced them to think that the holes do not randomly move in a material and only free
electrons do. Two of them suggested that a hole movement may occur because of
electrons with the energy level somewhere in between the valence and conduction
bands energy levels, again showing the lack of the concept of forbidden energy
bands. According to them, a valence electron moving to fill a hole has gained enough
energy to move to the valence shell of the neighboring atom but this energy is not
sufficient to make it free. When the learners were asked why an electron has greater
mobility than that of a hole (Box 2), the majority of the learners suggested that a free

13

International Journal
of Pedagogies and Learning

1(2), pp. 3-17. October 2005

electron moving freely in conduction band or hopping between holes results in

different mobility. The overall challenge here is to connect the concept of hole in a
meaningful way with other concepts in the map. The interaction of hole with atomic
structure will allow propositions about the movement of holes. It also allows
propositions that distinguish between p and n type semiconductors. Finally, the
integration of the concept of hole with its movement helps us differentiate it from the
idea of recombination. What is happening here includes differentiation, integration
and subsumption of concepts and the acquisition of multiple propositional links.
Recombination decreases the current
The misconception that the hole movement is in fact the result of recombination leads
the learners to think of recombination as the flow of current (Figure 1, Figure 2 and
Figure 3) and not as the cancellation of charges (Box 2) that results in the decrease in
the current or consequently in the increase in the resistance of the material. This is an
example of a wrong proposition that has to be removed. However, it depends upon the
presence of a number of concepts and propositions and so is challenging to acquire.
One advantage of a concept map is that it gives us a visual image of the full
dependency structure. This also applies to the next sections.
Drift and diffusion current
When the learners were asked to define drift and diffusion, 26 out of 50 defined drift
as a current owing to minority carriers and diffusion current as the current owing to
majority carriers (Figure 1). Three learners defined drift as current because of electric
field being applied and diffusion because of no external field being applied (Figure 3)
and the remaining 21 learners correctly distinguished the mechanism of diffusion and
drift current.
Box 3: Some concepts about the drift and diffusion current and temperature
dependence of various materials
1. Diffusion current is because of migration of moving charges from higher
concentration to lower concentration, and drift current is because of the
current flow due to an electric field applied. (Sedra et al., 2004, Figure 5
and Figure 6)
2. The drift current in a pn junction is because of minority carriers and
diffusion is through majority carriers but thats just a characteristic of a pn
junction. The drift and diffusion currents are in fact superordinate concepts.
3. The current because of electric field applied across a conductor is drift, but
diffusion can be made to occur in a conductor but that will only be a
transient process unlike the diffusion in a pn junction which is continuous
as the concentration gradient is permanently replenished by the external
field applied (Figure 6).
4. Diffusion is not because of majority carriers but because of carriers
concentrated on one side. (Sedra et al., 2004)
5. Increase in conductivity of a semiconductor with temperature is
exponential and decrease in the conductivity of a conductor is only linear
with temperature. Hence, semiconductors are more sensitive to temperature
as compared to conductors. (Amos, 1984, Figure 6)

14

International Journal
of Pedagogies and Learning

1(2), pp. 3-17. October 2005

Drift and diffusion in conductors

When the learners were asked to relate the current flow in a conductor with drift or
diffusion, out of 21 who correctly defined the two currents (not restricting it to just a
pn junction), three said that the current in the conductor cannot be related with either
drift or diffusion and it is a different current called conventional current (Figure 1).
Eight learners said that the current through the conductor can only be drift because
whenever we make current flow through a conductor, we apply an electric field across
it and 10 learners thought that, because the diffusion is due to majority carriers and
conductor current is due to a large number of free electrons present, so the current in a
conductor must be the diffusion current (Figure 2). Two students could not answer
this question and four said that because the conductors can conduct current so they
must be able to conduct all kinds of current, which indicated that they had no
conceptual details about the flow of either current. In semiconductors because there
are different types of charge carriers, the two currents, diffusion and drift, are present
at the same time in pn junction, so learners typically relate these two types of currents
only to a pn junction. Furthermore they restrict the concept of diffusion and drift to a
pn junction and, even when they study the flow of current through unipolar
semiconductor devices, they are unable to comprehend it.
Effect of temperature on conductors and semiconductors
When asked about how the temperature affects the conductivity of a semiconductor
(Box 3), 44 out of 50 learners answered that the conductivity of semiconductors
increases with the increase in temperature as the number of free carriers increases
(Figure 3). The remaining six learners suggested that it must decrease as the
collisions between free electrons increases just like it happens in a conductor. When
asked about how the conductivity of a conductor is affected with temperature, 28 out
of 50 learners replied that the behavior is the same as that in semiconductors, i.e. the
number of free electrons increases with the increase in temperature, hence increasing
the conductivity. 18 out of 50 learners answered that it will decrease as the
collisions of randomly moving free electrons increase, hence decreasing the
conductivity. Three out of 50 learners said that the temperature only affects the
conductivity of a semiconductor and has no effect on the conductivity of a
conductor. One of the students replied that as we increase the temperature, electrons
gain energy and start moving more rapidly which increases the amount of current,
hence decreasing the resistance of any material (Figure 2). Only one learner
answered that the increase in conductivity of a semiconductor with temperature is
exponential and the decrease in conductivity of a conductor is only linear with
temperature, hence correctly implying that semiconductors are more sensitive than
conductors to temperature. The conductors are only linearly affected by temperature
(Box 3) so, in studying the current through a conductor, temperature dependence is
not given much emphasis, so a learner thinks either that the temperature does not
affect the conductivity of the conductors or that the temperature affects both materials
in the same way. Lacking structural concepts, learners simply presume a similarity
between conductors and n type semiconductors.

Conclusion
The aim of physical sciences is to describe matter using a set of concepts such that the
entire body of knowledge forms a logico-deductive framework. The concept maps
provide a visual representation of an area of knowledge that is useful in a variety of
ways. First, they allow the teacher to have a comprehensive picture of the full set of

15

International Journal
of Pedagogies and Learning

1(2), pp. 3-17. October 2005

concepts and propositional links that constitutes an understanding of an area. Second,

via structured questionnaires and think aloud protocols, they allow a snapshot of the
learners knowledge and pinpoint the ways in which this knowledge differs from the
target knowledge. We suggest that these differences are characterised by learning
bottlenecks. Translating these bottlenecks into psychological language allows us to
focus on them and via learning theory develop means to resolve them.
In the area of semiconductor theory we found that the bottlenecks were typically
caused by misconceptions, missing concepts, missing or incorrect propositional links,
a need for subsumption and sometimes a combination of all these factors. In each case
an adequate description and a visual representation of the same (concept maps) opens
up the possibilities for effective learning and teaching. In future research, we would
like to focus on detailed descriptions and categorizations of the mental processes
involved in the bottleneck areas of concept maps e.g., identifying the sequences of
logical operations, memory retrievals, etc.

Acknowledgements
We are thankful to the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), Lahore,
Pakistan for supporting this research. We are also thankful to the National University
of Computer & Emerging Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan, for partially supporting this
research. We are especially thankful to all learners, students and instructors who were
interviewed during this research. In particular, we are thankful to R. Khan, A.
Hussain, J. Ikram and S. Masud for their help in and encouragement of this research.
We would also like to acknowledge the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, a
University Affiliated Research Institute (http://cmap.ihmc.us), for providing concept
mapping software tools.

References
Amos, S. W. (1984). Principles of transistor circuits (6th ed.). London: Butterworths.
Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New
York: Longman.
Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive
view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Benson, H. (1991). University physics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bogart, T. F., Beasley, J. S., & Rico, G. (2004). Electronic devices and circuits (6th
ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Castronova, J. (2002, Fall). Discovery learning for the 21st century: What is it and
how does it compare to traditional learning in effectiveness in the 21st
century? Action Research Exchange, 1(2). Retrieved 15 September, 2005,
from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/Litreviews/vol1no1/castronova_litr.pdf
Davis, W. J. (1999). Remember the students. In S. G. Krantz (Ed.), How to teach
mathematics (2nd ed.) (pp. 183-195). Providence, RI: American Mathematical
Society.
Gray P. E. (1967). Introduction to electronics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

16

International Journal
of Pedagogies and Learning

1(2), pp. 3-17. October 2005

Iqbal, M. A., & Alvi, A. (2004). The magic of dynamic programming. In W. Aung, R
Altenkirch, T. Cermak, R.W. King & L. M. S. Ruiz (Eds.), Innovations 2004:
World innovations in engineering education and research (pp. 409-418).
Arlington, VA: International Network for Engineering Education and
Research.
Iqbal, M. A., & Hashmi, Y. (2005). Bridging over problems of learning in finding
strongly connected components. Lahore, Pakistan: Department of Computer
Science, Lahore University of Management Sciences.
Iqbal, M. A., Hashmi, Y., & Nadeem, N. (2005). Teaching discovery-based learning.
In Innovations 2005: World innovations in engineering education and
research (pp. 327-346). Arlington, VA: International Network for Engineering
Education and Research.
Iqbal, M. A., & Tahir, S. (2003, Summer-Fall). Should we teach algorithms? Iranian
Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 2(2), 134-140.
Kolari, S., & Savander-Ranne, C. (2004). Visualization promotes apprehension and
comprehension. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), 484493.
Krantz, S. G. (1999). How to teach mathematics (2nd ed.). Providence, RI: American
Mathematical Society.
Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (1998). Teaching science for
understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (2000) Assessing science
understanding, A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Nadeem, N., Iqbal, M. A., & Hasan, M. (2005, March 1-5). Alternate models to teach
probability. In Proceedings of the international conference on engineering
education & research. Tainan, Taiwan: Exploring Innovation in Education &
Research.
Nazar, M. N., & Iqbal, M. A. (2005). An investigation into challenges of
understanding in signal processing. In Proceedings of the international
conference on engineering education & research. Tainan, Taiwan: Exploring
Innovation in Education & Research.
Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Piaget, J. (1926). The language and the thought of the child. New York: Harcourt
Brace.
Sedra, A. S., & Smith K. C. (2004). Microelectronic circuits (5th ed.) Oxford., UK:
Oxford University Press.
Treagust. D. F., Duit, R., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Overview: Research on students preinstructional conceptions the driving force for improving teaching and
learning in science & mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit & B. J. Fraser
(Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Turns, J., Adams, R., Linse, A., Martin, J., & Atman, C. J. (2004). Bridging from
research to teaching in undergraduate engineering design education.
International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), 379-390.

17

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.