Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 2463 – 2468

WCES 2014

The Importance of Inquiry-Based Learning on Electric Circuit

Models for Conceptual Understanding
Nuri Korganci a,b*, Cristina Mirona†, Adrian Dafineia, Stefan Antohea
a
Faculty of Physics, University of Bucharest, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania
b
International Computer High School, Bucharest, Romania

Abstract

Students usually have difficulties to understand abstract concepts of electric circuits. Various electric circuit models are used to
build comprehensive bridges between reality and models. In this study, effect of using the water circuit analogy on students’
conceptual understanding is explored. Sample divided into three groups. For experimental group I, electric circuit mental-models
animated in their mind and applied. For experimental group II, electric circuit mental models and water circuit analogy were
applied. For control group, traditional teaching method was used. The results indicate statistically significant differences between
two experimental groups and the control group. The use of electric circuit mental models and water circuit analogy as teaching
aids were more effective in electricity concepts than traditional teaching method.
© 2015
© 2014TheTheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd. Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014
Keywords: Inquiry-Based Learning, Concepts of electric circuit, Analogy, Misconceptions, Mental models

1. Introduction

Science teachers have often referred to the use of analogies to introduce new concepts to students. Analogies are
believed to help students’ learning by providing visualization of abstract concepts, allowing for comparison between
the students’ real world and new concepts, and by increasing their motivation (Duit, 1991). Tangible analogies
facilitate understanding of the abstract concept by pointing to similarities between objects or events in the students’

* Nuri Korganci. Tel.: +4-074-846-7899

E-mail address: nkorganci@gmail.com
† Cristina Miron. Tel.: +4-072-171-1890
E-mail address: cristina.miron@fizica.unibuc.ro

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.530
2464 Nuri Korganci et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 2463 – 2468

world and the phenomenon under discussion. Analogies can be motivational in that, as the teacher uses ideas from
the students’ real world experience, a sense of intrinsic interest is generated. From a teaching perspective, the use of
analogies can enhance conceptual change in science learning since they open new perspectives (Treagust, Harrison,
Venville & Dagher, 1996; Chiu & Lin, 2002; Thiele & Treagust, 1995). Analogies have also played an important
role in scientific discoveries, not as proof, but as inspiration (Kaiser, 1989). Analogies are present among several
pedagogical resources to present scientific concepts. However, it is often taken for granted that they are easy to
understand and use. Duit (1991) argues that mental models, like analogies, have to do with the structural mapping
of different domains, but they particularly represent parts of structures of target domains as a whole. It is the
analogical relation that makes a model, a model. An analogy, he says, explicitly compares the structures of two
domains; it indicates identity of parts, structures or functions (e.g. “flowing water in the water circuit is like electric
current in the electric circuit”). It is difficult for high school students to understand basic concepts of electric circuits
as compared to basic mechanics concepts. This may be due to the fact that we cannot see the movement of electric
charge carriers (electrons) in an electric wire. Physics teachers should use a variety of electric circuit models that
will enable those students encountering circuits for the first time to come up with their own coherent mental picture
of current flow in an electric circuit. Water circuit analogy has proved helpful in this endeavour (Pfister, 2004). It
shows several fundamental electric circuit properties to students and dissipates some of the battery and light bulb
misconceptions. Studies have shown that the strategies developed for determining and overcoming students’
misconceptions have been successful (Duit & Treagust, 2003; Glynn, 1991). Misconceptions that pose a risk the
learning of new knowledge need to be determined and replaced with the accurate knowledge. This study researched
on whether mental models and water circuit analogy could be used in physics classes as supplementary teaching
tools in order to dissipate students’ misconceptions such as speed of electricity is too fast, light bulb use up current,
the battery always supplies the same current to the circuit.

1.1. Literature review

Studies showed that students come to class with their existing knowledge that they construct with their
experiences or formal learning (Fetherstonhaugh & Treagust, 1992). This prior knowledge is called preconceptions.
Some of these preconceptions are in conflict with the scientific view. Preconceptions which are in conflict with the
scientific view are called misconceptions (Driver, 1989; Tytler, 2002; Widodo, Duit & Müller, 2002). Analogies can
remove some of these misconceptions by making conceptual bridges for students between what is familiar (an
analog concept) and what are new (a target concept) (Glynn, 1991). When introducing a new concept, we often start
explaining by using things that are already familiar with. Using analogy effectively helps both teachers and learners
to communicate and understand abstract science concepts. Since analogies used in science classes transform the
abstract concepts into more concrete ones, they are especially helpful for the students with weak comprehension
skills (Duit, 1991). Many researchers reported that the use of pictures and models with analogies is efficient in
understanding abstract concepts (Cutis & Reigeluth, 1983) because verbal analogy alone is insufficient for students
to understand the concept. However, when presented either verbally and visually using aids or props, the learning
process is more efficient, yielding long-term memory of the concept (Noh, Choi & Kwon 1998). It was also reported
that multiple analogies could be more helpful because analogies are helpful in learning specific parts of the target
domain (Duit, 1991). Water circuits provide an excellent analogy to simple electric circuits. The purpose of this
analogy is to get a feel and see for how electricity behaves by observing water flow through circuits. Water circuit
analogy illustrates several fundamental electric circuit properties visually to students. It can eliminate and possibly
even dissipate some of the battery and light bulb misconceptions. Glitter pieces allow students to identify the glitter
pieces suspended within the fluid like the electrons in the electric wire. Some common misconceptions pertaining to
simple electric circuits containing batteries and bulbs are, for example, the notion that a light bulb “uses up” current,
or that a battery “produces” current. The prevalence of these misconceptions is evidenced by assessment tools
(Sokoloff, 1998). Elaborate analogy is much better mechanism for providing instructional scaffolding (Glynn &
Takahashi, 1998). Elaborate analogies provide a rich situated context for learning. By systematically mapping verbal
and visual features of analog concepts onto those of target concepts, analogies can facilitate the cognitive process of
elaboration. Elaborate analogies have been found to increase students’ learning of target concepts and their interest
in the concepts (Paris & Glynn, 2004). An analogy can be used to explain correctly and even predict some aspects of
the target concept. At some point, however, every analogy “breaks down” as there are always a number of
 Nuri Korganci et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 2463 – 2468 2465

similarities and crucial dissimilarities. It is precisely at that point when miscomprehension and misdirection can
begin (Glynn, 1991). For this reason, Duit and Glynn (Duit & Glynn, 1996) have said that analogies are ‘double-
edged swords’.

2. Methods

2.1. Sample and Instrumentation

The sample was made up of forty-six high school students, divided into three groups. For experimental group I,
the electric circuit mental-models verbally explained. For experimental group II, the electric circuit mental models
and water circuit analogy were applied. For the control group, traditional teaching method was used. An instrument
composed of two-phase thirty-items Electricity Concepts Test (ECT), was developed by the researchers in order to
identify misconceptions. Interviews were also conducted. Firstly two-phase test were introduced for diagnostic
purposes. For the first phase of the ECT, students are asked to give an answer to the question; for the second phase,
there are questions relating to how sure s/he is about the answer given. If a student is sure about a wrong answer as
well as the related reason s/he gives for the first phase, then the student can be said to have a misconception.
Otherwise, the wrong answer, which is due to a lack of knowledge, cannot be named a misconception. This test was
piloted on twenty-two 10th grade students and modifications were made prior to the final test. To identify content
validity of the test questions, tables were prepared according to the questions and topic distribution relating to the
prepared questions. Then, the questions, topic distributions, and tables were controlled and edited by two expert
physics teachers. In this study, Cronbach-Alfa reliability coefficient was calculated by using Windows-compatible
SPSS-21 program. The reliability coefficient of the test was found to be 0.75. One example of ECCT question is
presented in Figure 1.

Fig.1 Example of ECCT question

Pre and post-tests were given to all three groups. The pre-test was administered one week before the intervention
in order to assess students' knowledge of the content. The electricity chapter was taught for five days as an
intervention. After the intervention, a post-test was given in order to determine the effectiveness of interventions in
all three groups, which used different strategies utilizing the mental models and water circuit analogy. Lesson plans
in the intervention dealt with themes and topics as following using the models and water circuit analogy.

2.2. Data Analysis

In the pre-test results, the average score of the control group was 4.0, that of experimental group I was 3.88, and
that of experimental group II was 5.21 as shown in Table 1. So there was no significant difference before of the
intervention.
Table-1. ANOVA results on Pre-test.
Test Group N Mean SD F-value
Control 16 4.0 1.9
Pre-Test Experiment I 16 3.88 1.67 2.56‫כככ‬
Experiment II 14 5.21 1.71

剷剷剷
p > .005

The analyses of post-test results in the three groups are shown in Tables 2. There were significant differences in
2466 Nuri Korganci et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 2463 – 2468

the control group, experimental group I and experimental group II when analyzed using ANOVA. The average post-
test score in the control group was 6.93, which was the lowest among the three groups. The average in experimental
group I was 9.75 and that in experimental group II was 12.29. The ANOVA analysis showed that there was a
statistically significant difference among the three groups (p<.001).

Table 2. ANOVA results on Post-test.

Test Group N Mean SD F-value
Control 16 6.93 2.02
Pre-Test Experiment I 16 9.75 2.02 28.07‫כככ‬
Experiment II 14 12.29 2.02
剷剷剷
p < .001

Table 3 Independent t-test of post-test of experimental groups.

Test Group N Mean SD df t
Pre-Test Experiment I 16 9.75 2.02 28 3.67
Experiment II 14 12.29 1.73 28 -3.70
剷剷剷
p < .001

t-test showed that the experimental group I and experimental group II were significantly different (p=.01) as in
Table-3.
The above results show that the students in the two experimental groups, who were taught using the electric
circuit model and water analogy, obtained better understanding of electricity related concepts than those in the
control group, which used the traditional teaching. There was also significant difference between the two
experimental groups: those who were given the electric circuit model and those who were given both the electric
circuit model and the water circuit analogy. This implies that the water circuit served as a sufficient aid for students
to understand electricity-related concepts. The study further analyzed each misconception in the post-test in order to
examine which items were significantly different among the three groups in terms of comprehending the concepts.
Students in the experimental groups who were taught with the water circuit analogy responded more appropriately
than those who were taught using the mental models. They saw the current conservation due to glitter pieces
traversing any cross section of the tube is the same no matter where the cross- sectional area is chosen. Most of the
students in the control group and the experimental group responded that light bulb does use up current and the
current is stored in the battery. In contrary, in the experimental group they respond correctly, they saw that glitter
pieces enter and leave thin tube with same amount does not destroy glitter and they saw that battery does not create
electrons. The pump does not create any glitter pieces but rather only pumps them through the circuit. Students said
that it was impressive and excited to see the slow motion of flow of glitters starts instantaneously in everywhere in
tubes including thin tubes to compare with electricity. It was observed that electricity is not fast.

3. Results and Discussion

It is clear that the water circuit analogy was more effective in helping the students comprehend and understand
electricity-related concepts than the mental electric circuit models. Therefore, it is suggested that more appropriate
analogies need to be developed and applied appropriately to help students comprehend abstract phenomena. It is the
teacher’s aim to best facilitate a student’s learning experience and to motivate his or her interest by using various
visual aids and props. Because many science concepts are difficult to understand when verbally explained, the use of
various teaching aids to provide concrete images and to visualize the concept is important teaching strategy. The pre
and posttest results indicated that the misconceptions of students could not totally be overcome; however, the
number of students with misconceptions decreased. This result is in line with the results of other studies that
misconceptions are resistant to change (Pines & West, 1986; Tsai, 2003). Despite the utilization of teaching
methodologies that are effective in overcoming misconceptions, it should be considered that students’
misconceptions could not be overcome totally. The misconceptions determined in this section were as follows:
x Current decreases when it passes through the bulb.
x Light bulb use up current
 Nuri Korganci et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 2463 – 2468 2467

x The current is stored in the battery/generator

x Resistance is the force applied to the opposite direction of the electric current
x Resistance is the obstacle applied to the electric current
x Potential difference is a force.
x Potential difference is created by the electric current
x Current which passes on a simple electric circuit is partially consumed by the bulb.
x The battery always supplies the same current to the circuit.
x Brightness of the bulb that is far from the battery is less than those, which are close to the battery.
x Concept of potential difference, current, power and energy are the same things.
x Speed of electricity is fast
Similar misconceptions of students were also reported in the literature (Cohen, Eylon & Ganiel, 1982; Çepni &
Keles, 2006; Duit & Rhöneck, 1997; Heller & Findley, 1992; Shipston et al., 1988).
Following the teaching water circuit analogy, the misconceptions related to “The current is stored in the
battery/generator”, “Speed of electricity is too fast”, “Resistance is the force applied to the opposite direction of the
electric current”, “Light bulb use up current” and “Current decreases when it passes through the bulb” are not seen
in the post-test. Those misconceptions of “The battery always supplies the same current to the circuit”, “Potential
difference is a force” and “Concept of potential difference, current, power and energy are the same things” are
mentioned by small number of the students .
When generally overlooked to both post-test and delayed post-test except from the “batteries are the constant
current sources” misconception, it can be concluded that teaching with water circuit analogy and mental models has
been effective on conceptual changes.

References

Çepni, S., & Keles, E. (2006). Turkisch students’ conceptions about the simple electric circuits. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 4, 269-291.
Chiu, M. H., & Lin, J. W. (2002). Using multiple analogies for investigating fourth graders’ conceptual change in electricity, Chinese Journal of
Research in Science Education, 10, 109–134
Cohen, R., Eylon, B., & Ganiel, U. (1982). Potential difference and current in simple electric circuits: A Study of students’ concept. American
Journal of Physics, 51(5), 407-412.
Cutis, R. V., & Reigeluth C. M. (1983). The effects of analogies on student motivation and performance in an eighth grade science context.
(Syracuse Univ., New York), IDD & E working paper No. 9.
Driver, R. (1989). Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 481-490.
Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science, Science Education, 75, 649–672.
Duit, R., & Glynn, S. (1996). Mental modelling, in G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in Science Education in Europe: Current
Issues and Themes. London: Farmer Press.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (2003). Conceptual change – a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal
of Science Education, 25, 671-688.
Fetherstonhaugh, T., & Treagust, D. F. (1992). Students’ understanding of light and its properties: teaching to engender conceptual change. Sci
Educ, 76, 653–672.
Gilbert, J. (1993). The role of models and modelling in science education. Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Glynn, S. (1991). Explaining science concepts: a Teaching With-Analogies Model, in S. Glynn, R. Yeanny & B. Britton (Eds.), The Psychology
of Learning Science. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Glynn, S. M., & Takahashi, T. (1998). Learning from analogy-enhanced science text. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1129-1149.
Heller, P. M., & Finley, F.N. (1992). Variable uses of alternative conceptions: a case study in current electricity. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 29(3), 259-275.
Kaiser, W. (1989). Analogien in Physik und Technik im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. (Analo-Analogien in Physik und Technik im 19. und 20.
Jahrhundert. (Analo-Jahrhundert. (Analogies in physics and technology in the 19th and 20th centuries.) Berichte zur
Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 12(1), 19-34.
Paris, N. A., & Glynn, S. M. (2004). Elaborate analogies in science text: Tools for enhancing Preservice teachers’ knowledge and attitudes.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 230-47.
Pfister, H. (2004). Illustrating Electric Circuit Concepts with the Glitter Circuit. The Physics Teacher, 42, 359-363.
Pines, A.L., & West, L.H.T. (1986). Conceptual understanding and science learning: An interpretation of research within a sources-of-knowledge
framework. Science Education, 70(5), 583-604.
Shipstone, D.M., Rhöneck, C.V., Jung, W., Karrqvist, C., Dupin, J.J., Joshua, S., & Licht, P. (1988). A study of secondary students’
understanding of electricity in five European countries. International Journal of Science Education, 10(3), 303-316.
Sokoloff, D. (1998). The Electric Circuits Concept Evaluation (ECCE). Retrieved 10 September 2013
http://physics.dickinson.edu/~wp_web/wp_resources/wp_assessment.html#ECCE
2468 Nuri Korganci et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 2463 – 2468

Thiele, R.B., & Treagust, D.F. (1995). Analogies in chemistry textbook, International Journal of Science Education, 17, 783-795.
Treagust, D.F., Harrison, A.G., Venville, G., & Dagher, Z. (1996). Using an Analogical Teaching Approach to Engender Conceptual Change,
International Journal of Science Education, 18, 213-229
Tsai, C.C. (2003). Using a conflict map as an instructional tool to change student alternative conceptions in simple series electric-circuits.
International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 307-327.
Tytler, R. (2002). Teaching for understanding in science: Student conceptions research, and changing views of learning. Australian Science
Teachers Journal, 48(3), 14-21.
Widodo, A., Duit, R., & Müller, C. (2002). Constructivist views of teaching and learning in practice: Teachers’ views and classroom behaviour.
Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans.