Models in Physics, Models for Physics Learning, and Why the Distinction may Matter in the Case of Electric Circuits

Models are important both in the development of physics itself and in teaching physics. Historically, the consensus models of physics have come to embody particular ontological assumptions and epistemological commitments. Educators have generally assumed that the consensus models of physics, which have stood the test of time, will also work well as teaching models, and for many topics this assumption is at least unproblematic and in many cases productive. However, in the case of electric circuits the consensus models are highly abstract and consequently inaccessible to beginning learners. Certain historically derived analogues for the consensus models are accepted in texts, but these are demonstrably ineffective for helping learners grasp the fundamental concepts of electric circuits. While awareness of other models circulates informally in the teaching community, these are not well documented in the science education literature and rarely referred to in authoritative texts, possibly because the models do not share the ontological assumptions and epistemological commitments that characterise consensus models. Consequently these models have not been subjected to a disciplined critique of their effectiveness for teaching purposes. In this paper I use criteria drawn from the science education literature to reflect on why I have found particular models valuable in teaching electric circuits. These criteria contrast with the epistemological and ontological features that characterise the consensus models of science, and my reflection leads me to attend explicitly to the ways in which meanings are created within physics. This suggests that all models, whether consensus models or not, can be used more knowingly for important educational ends.

[1]  J. Lemke Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values , 1990 .

[2]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Science teachers’ use of analogies: observations from classroom practice , 1992 .

[3]  David F. Treagust,et al.  A historical analysis of electric currents in textbooks: A century of influence on physics education , 1994 .

[4]  P. Johnson-Laird Mental models , 1989 .

[5]  Leonie Gianello,et al.  Getting Into Gear Gender Inclusive Teaching Strategies in Science , 1991 .

[6]  R. Duit On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. , 1991 .

[7]  Eduardo Fleury Mortimer,et al.  Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms , 2003 .

[8]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Modelling in Science Lessons: Are There Better Ways to Learn With Models? , 1998 .

[9]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  Models in explanations, Part 1 : Horses for courses? , 1998 .

[10]  G. Wells,et al.  "Dialogic Inquiry. Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education", Gordon Wells, Cambridge 1999 : [recenzja] / Marta Marchow. , 2001 .

[11]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  Models in explanations, Part 2: Whose voice? Whose ears? , 1998 .

[12]  Pamela Joy Mulhall,et al.  A Perspective on the Resolution of Confusions in the Teaching of Electricity , 2001 .

[13]  D. Halliday Fundamentals of physics. 5th ed. , 1997 .

[14]  L. West,et al.  Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change , 1985 .

[15]  David F. Treagust,et al.  A typology of school science models , 2000 .

[16]  Arthur Beiser,et al.  Physics, 3rd ed. , 1983 .

[17]  D. Heywood The Place of Analogies in Science Education , 2002 .

[18]  P. Scott,et al.  Individual and Sociocultural Views of Learning in Science Education , 2003 .

[19]  J. H. Driel,et al.  Developing science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge , 1998 .

[20]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Images of electricity: how do novices and experts model electric current? , 1996 .

[21]  Margaret Wertheim,et al.  Pythagoras' Trousers: God, Physics, and the Gender Wars , 1995 .

[22]  D. Gentner,et al.  Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity , 1982 .