Research Article Investigating Middle School Students' Ability To Develop Energy As A Framework For Analyzing Simple Physical Phenomena

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 53, NO. 1, PP.
119–145 (2016)
Research Article
Investigating Middle School Students’ Ability to Develop Energy as a

Framework for Analyzing Simple Physical Phenomena
Nicos Papadouris and Constantinos P. Constantinou
Learning in Science Group, Department of Educational Sciences, University of Cyprus,

P.O. Box 20537, 1678 Nicosia, Cyprus
Received 8 December 2014; Accepted 31 March 2015
Abstract: We investigated whether it is possible for 12-year-old students to develop a qualitative

conceptualization of energy and four associate features (forms of energy, transfer processes, conservation,
and degradation) as a framework for constructing interpretive accounts for the operation of physical
phenomena (specifically, for changes taking place in simple physical systems). We implemented, in authentic
classroom environments, a specific teaching–learning sequence designed to promote this particular learning
objective. The implementation involved three intact classes (N ¼ 64) and lasted nine 80-minute sessions. We
collected data through open-ended tasks and follow-up interviews, so as to investigate what could be achieved
by students in terms of employing energy for analyzing the operation of physical systems. The findings
suggest that, to a large extent, the students were able to productively meet this challenge. At the same time,
the data revealed specific conceptual, reasoning, or other difficulties they encountered. Our findings have
implications for specific issues debated in the literature on teaching and learning about energy, including the
developmental appropriateness of energy as a learning objective for the lower middle school grades and the
instructional value of forms of energy. We discuss boundary conditions in terms of what falls within the reach
of lower middle school students and highlight implications for the characteristics of physical systems that
could be productively analyzed by students of this age. # 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach
53: 119–145, 2016
Keywords: energy; interpreting system behavior; epistemological awareness; scientific constructs
Understanding energy is widely recognized as a major learning objective of school science,

starting from the elementary school. Energy has been identified as one of four core concepts of the
physical sciences and one of seven cross-cutting concepts of the framework for K-12 science
education standards (NRC, 2012). Despite this widespread recognition of the significance of
energy understandings, research has consistently demonstrated the failure of conventional
teaching to help students develop an articulated notion of energy (Becker & Cooper, 2014; Driver
& Warrington, 1985; Duit, 1984; Herrmann-Abell & DeBoer, 2014; Lee & Liu, 2010; Liu &
McKeough, 2005; Neumann, Viering, Boone, & Fischer, 2013). To reiterate some of the most
widely documented findings, students tend to (1) use the term energy in a loose manner that
conflates it with other concepts such as force or electric current, (2) confuse forms of energy and
energy transfer processes, and (3) fall short of using the energy conservation principle as a tool for
deriving (qualitative) predictions about the operation of very simple physical phenomena. Even
Correspondence to: Nicos Papadouris; E-mail: npapa@ucy.ac.cy

DOI 10.1002/tea.21248
Published online 8 May 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
# 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

120 PAPADOURIS AND CONSTANTINOU
more importantly, there is a lack of consensus within the science education community on what
teaching about energy should actually involve. For instance, there has been considerable debate on
(1) whether (and how?) to address the nature of energy within school science, and (2) the
instructional value of the idea that energy manifests itself in various forms (Kaper & Goedhart,
2002; Millar, 2014). This lack of consensus is related to the abstract, purely quantitative nature of
energy as a construct (Feynman, Leighton, & Sands, 1963), which does not seem to resonate with
students’ cognitive resources. This has been used in the past as an argument for the position that
teaching about energy should be postponed until the upper grades of high school or even college
(e.g., Warren, 1986). Resolving this mismatch creates a significant instructional challenge, which
is more salient in the elementary and middle school grades (Constantinou & Papadouris, 2012;
Domenech et al., 2007; Driver & Millar, 1986).
The attention that teaching and learning about energy has attracted in the science education
research literature has yielded important insights into a range of issues, including (1) the
conceptualization of issues associated with energy as a learning objective of school science
(Boohan & Ogborn, 1996; Domenech et al., 2007), (2) students’ understanding of energy and the
conceptual difficulties they encounter (e.g., Driver & Warrington, 1985; Duit, 1984; Kesidou &
Duit, 1993; Lawson & McDermott, 1987; Lee & Liu, 2010; Liu & McKeough, 2005; Neumann
et al., 2013; Papadouris, Constantinou, & Kyratsi, 2008; Trumper, 1993; Watts & Gilbert, 1983),
and (3) possible teaching strategies (Ding, Chabay, & Sherwood, 2013; Koliopoulos, 1997;
Nordine, Krajcik, & Fortus, 2011; Scherr, Close, McKagan, & Vokos, 2012; Schmid
1982; Solomon, 1992; Van Heuvelen & Zou, 2001). Despite significant findings, this research line
has not helped us address the instructional challenge about energy. This is evidenced by the
persisting lack of consensus on “what to teach about energy, when and how?” (e.g., Constantinou
& Papadouris, 2012; Krajcik et al., 2014; Quinn, 2014). There is a need for further research,
especially classroom-based empirical studies for exploring what students at various grade levels
can achieve, in terms of understanding about energy, while working under potentially effective
learning conditions in the context of specially designed learning environments (Duschl,
Schweingruber, & Shouse, 2007; Krajcik et al., 2014). In this paper, we report on an exploratory
study in this direction. In particular, we set out to investigate 12-year-old students’ ability to
develop and use energy as a framework for analyzing simple physical phenomena.
Theoretical Background
Conventional Teaching About Energy-Facility to Address the Instructional Challenge
Conventional teaching about energy has typically relied on definitional approaches. These
are exemplified by the energy as the ability to do work approach, the most prevalent (Driver &
Millar, 1986). Underlying the tendency towards these approaches is the assumption that energy
has to be introduced as a physical quantity. Devising teaching materials under this assumption is
beset with important epistemological obstacles (Papadouris & Constantinou, 2014a). For
instance, energy, in its most general sense, independent of its individual forms, cannot be depicted
by means of tangible, concrete representations that could be directly linked with kinesthetic
experiences. A related obstacle refers to the difficulty associated with the development of a
workable operational definition for energy that remains true to its epistemological structure and
complexity (Papadouris & Constantinou, 2014a; Vokos, 2010). These epistemological obstacles
have typically resulted in the compartmentalization of the teaching of energy to isolated domains
(e.g., mechanics). This is a misleading perspective; it clashes with the epistemological structure of
energy as a cross-cutting concept that can unify the analysis of systems drawn from
phenomenologically disparate domains such as mechanics, electric circuits, or magnetism
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
ENERGY AS A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING SIMPLE PHYSICAL PHENOMENA 121
(Arons, 1999; Holton & Brush, 2001; NRC, 2012). Evidently, this compartmentalization, at best,
fails to help students appreciate its unifying aspect, in some cases nurturing the conceptualization
that energy is exclusively associated with individual domains.
An Epistemologically Oriented Perspective
In prior work, we have proposed an epistemologically oriented approach to teaching and
learning about energy (Constantinou & Papadouris, 2012). This approach is predicated on the
premise that any attempt to introduce energy in school science needs to address the fundamental
epistemological question “what is energy, why is it useful and how do we use it?”, in an effective
manner. This is needed to enable students to develop a coherent understanding of energy. Below
we provide a brief overview of the rationale underlying this approach whereas the reader is
referred to Constantinou and Papadouris (2012) and Papadouris and Constantinou (2014a) for a
more thorough description.
The teaching approach, which is summarized diagrammatically in Figure 1, begins with the
notions of physical systems and changes occurring in physical systems. It then focuses on the
analysis, that is, identification and interpretation, of changes in a broad range of physical systems,
without any intentional reference to energy. On a parallel thread, students are guided to appreciate
the idea that in science we seek to develop interpretive accounts of the operation of physical
systems and this involves inventing and elaborating interpretive mechanisms. The elaboration of
these ideas, sets the stage for the introduction of energy. Specifically, the emphasis is shifted to the
value of a unifying framework that could subsume the analysis of changes occurring in
phenomenologically disparate physical systems. Energy is introduced, at that stage, as a concept
that has been invented in science so as to serve this particular role. Thus, rather than introducing
energy from the outset, by imposing it on students as an important concept, in an arbitrary or
abstract manner, this approach seeks to elicit the need for this concept by highlighting its potential
to facilitate a unified, coherent perspective to the analysis of changes in physical systems. In the
Figure 1. An epistemologically oriented perspective to teaching and learning about energy.

next instance, the emphasis is placed on the gradual, conceptual elaboration of the features of
energy (i.e., transfer, transformation, conservation, and degradation), as a framework that can be
used to provide self-consistent interpretations for changes occurring in a wide range of systems
spanning various branches of physics.
Energy as a Framework for the Analysis of Physical Systems in Formal Science
The proposed teaching approach capitalizes on the epistemic role of energy as a framework
for the analysis of physical systems. In this section, we elaborate on the premises underpinning
this connection. In formal science, there is a strong connection between energy and system
analysis, which stems from energy being a conserved quantity. A system is a clearly defined set of
objects that is of interest in a given situation. Any system is confined within certain boundaries,
which separate it from its environment. The environment essentially includes anything that
extends beyond the confines of the system. The boundaries between the system and its
environment are not fixed. Rather, their delineation reflects an intentional choice, which is guided
by the very purpose of the analysis in a particular situation. In some cases, the boundaries may be
strategically set so as to preclude any exchange of energy (or matter) between the system and its
environment, thereby securing what is called an isolated system. In other cases, the system choice
may allow for energy transfers between the system and its surroundings. Energy conservation is
captured by the first law of thermodynamics, which essentially states that the amount of energy
stored in an isolated system is constant. A consequence of this is that the energy in non-isolated
systems could be decreasing or increasing, though, in any case, these changes are necessarily
compensated for by corresponding changes in the total amount of the energy stored in the
environment of the system. This is recognized as one of the most powerful laws in terms of
analyzing the operation of physical systems. For instance, it serves to restrict the possible
configurations that can be attained by an isolated system, by excluding those that do not conserve
the total amount of energy (Quinn, 2014).
System Analysis and Energy in School Science
Drawing on the fact that the value of energy in system analysis derives primarily from the
corresponding conservation law, which is quantitative in nature, the idea that energy can (or even
should) be elaborated as an analytic tool for describing, in qualitative terms, the operation of
physical systems starting from an early stage has gained increased recognition (Dauer, Miller, &
Anderson, 2014; Lacy, Tobin, Wiser, & Crissman, 2014; Nordine et al., 2011). Indeed, an early
appreciation of the connection between energy and systems can provide an effective initiation into
thinking with energy but also can help to sustain an interest in learning about energy in the longer
term, when it will become possible to introduce energy as a quantitative construct. Such an
approach could safeguard against the danger of reducing the conservation law to algorithmic
applications in solving quantitative “energy problems,” as is often the case in conventional
teaching.
In seeking energy-based descriptions of the operation of physical systems, students could be
guided to delineate the system of interest and identify changes in energy that relate to the aspect of
the operation of the system under analysis (Lacy et al., 2014). Implicit in these, is the vitally
important idea of tracking energy within the system (NRC, 2012). This involves developing
energy tracking accounts for capturing and depicting the energy transfers and transformations
associated with the operation of a system under analysis (see Scherr et al., 2012 for a review of
possible ways of representing such energy tracking accounts). Even though these accounts allude
to some sort of quantitative measures of the amounts of energy stored at various regions of the
system or the amounts crossing the boundaries between the system and its environment, it is also
possible to envision simplified, qualitative accounts that are restricted to the identification of
initial and final stores of energy associated with the phenomenon of interest and relevant instances
of either energy transfer or form conversion. These accounts could also incorporate semi-
quantitative information, such as the identification of forms of energy that increase/decrease in
quantity and, possibly, indications of how energy is conserved in quantity (e.g., illustrate how the
total amount of energy at the initial state of a closed system is equal to the total amount at the final
state, despite the redistribution of energy among the objects of the system and the relevant form
conversions). At a subsequent stage, these accounts could become even more elaborate in terms of
the accuracy of the quantitative analysis they provide.
In this study, we draw on a specific form of expressing qualitatively energy-tracking accounts,
namely the energy chain. Energy chains describe, in a graphical manner, the operation of
individual systems in terms of energy transfer and transformation. They consist of arrangements
of rectangles (denoting forms of energy) and arrows (denoting energy transfer processes) (see
Figure 2 for examples of energy chains). Drawing the distinction between forms of energy and
energy transfer processes in a systematic manner, enables addressing, in an implicit manner, the
very important distinction between states and processes (Knight, 1997; Turns, 2006).
One important constraint that needs to be considered in teaching about energy as a tool for
analyzing systems relates to the conceptual complexity of the systems per se. At a basic level,
(upper elementary/lower middle school grades), students could be engaged with the analysis of
simple systems, in terms of both the number of energy transfers/transformations they involve and
their conceptual complexity. Complexity and sophistication could be gradually elevated at
subsequent stages. For instance, students could be engaged with the analysis of dynamic systems
that maintain a steady state, regardless of the energy changes they undergo, or systems depicting
multiple instances of energy transfers that run in parallel.
Purpose of the Study

In prior work, we have elaborated the theoretical foundations underpinning the epistemologi-
cally oriented approach outlined earlier (Constantinou & Papadouris, 2012) and we have
developed a specific teaching learning sequence (TLS) for lower middle school students that
actually embodies this particular approach (Papadouris & Constantinou, 2011). In this study, we
focus on the enactment of this TLS, in classroom settings, as a means to explore what middle-
school students can potentially achieve, with a view to contribute to the ongoing discussion on
teaching and learning about energy. We focus on the potential to impact on students’ ability to
employ energy and its features for the analysis of changes occurring in simple physical systems.
Specifically, we set out to address the following broad question: to what extent could twelve-year-
old students, under specified learning conditions, develop the ability to undertake qualitative
analysis of changes taking place in physical systems and come up with corresponding energy-
tracking accounts?
In an attempt to operationalize and focus the thrust of this question, we have analyzed it into
the following two specific research questions:
1. To what extent can students undertake qualitative energy analysis of specified system
changes by (1) identifying the relevant forms of energy and energy transfer processes,
(2) synthesizing them to construct energy-tracking accounts (energy chains), and (3)
aligning their energy-tracking accounts with the features of energy conservation and
degradation?
2. What difficulties do students encounter in their attempt to construct energy-tracking
accounts?
Figure 2. Overview of written assessment task and the anticipated correct response.

Methods
Participants
The study took place in Cyprus. The TLS was implemented in three intact sixth-grade classes
with a total of 64 students aged 11–12. The school is typical of the local educational system in
terms of the student population but also in terms of the administrative structure, organization, time
allocation for the various subject domains and the curriculum that is followed. Participants had not
been exposed to any specially designed instruction about energy prior to this study.
Overview of the Teaching–Learning Sequence and Teaching Approach
The TLS combines learning objectives relating to both conceptual understanding about
energy and appreciation of fundamental aspects of NOS. It consists of three main parts. The first,
includes activities that engage students in explicit epistemic discourse (Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick,
& Lederman, 2000) about certain aspects of the Nature of Science (NOS), including the distinction
between observation and inference and the role of human invention in scientific inquiry
(Lederman, 2007). These activities serve to build a philosophically informed, working framework
for supporting the subsequent introduction and elaboration of energy as an invented, human
construct. The second part engages students in the identification of changes occurring in a variety
of systems, spanning various branches of physics. The primary objective is to elicit the value of a
single, unifying interpretation for all these changes. Linking back to the first section, energy is
introduced at that stage as a construct that has been invented in science so as to serve this specific,
unifying role. The third section involves the gradual elaboration of energy as a framework for
analyzing systems, through the introduction of its main features, namely transfer,transformation,
conservation, and degradation. This section elaborates the energy chain as a form of expressing
(qualitatively) energy-tracking accounts and engages students in the process of constructing
energy chains for describing the operation of a selected set of physical systems. A more elaborate
description of the TLS can be found in Papadouris and Constantinou (2011).
The implementation of the TLS lasted nine 80-minute sessions, allocated in 5 consecutive
weeks. Table S1 provides an overview of what was involved in each session. The teaching
approach largely drew on the Physics by Inquiry pedagogy (McDermott and the Physics Education
Group at the University of Washington, 1996). In particular, students routinely worked in groups
and implemented the activity sequence, without being exposed to lecturing. When they reached
certain, pre-specified points of the activity sequence, each group of students separately discussed
the preceding activities with the teacher. During these discussions, rather than providing direct
answers to students’ questions or comments, the teacher attempted to facilitate consensus,
consistency, and accountability in the student thinking and help them articulate their thoughts and
recognize and negotiate difficulties they encountered.
Data Sources and Data Collection Process
Prior to and after the implementation of the TLS, we collected data from (1) written open-
ended tasks, which were individually completed by students and (2) semi-structured individual
interviews with a random, sub-sample of 30 students, intended to provide us with further insights
into their reasoning. Given the focus of the study and the thrust of its research questions, we only
focus on the post-instruction data. Also, even though we have administered assessment tasks for
both the epistemic and the conceptual learning objectives targeted at by the TLS, in this study, we
only report on tasks aiming to assess students’ ability to construct energy-tracking accounts for
simple physical phenomena. A discussion of the results with respect to the epistemic learning
objectives can be found in Papadouris and Constantinou (2014b).
Written Assessment Task. The written assessment task engages students in analyzing specific
changes occurring in three simple systems, which were not studied during instruction. The first
system includes a worker who uses an electric drill to perforate a hole on a wall, the second shows a
woman who strikes a ball with a golf club, causing it to start sliding on a level surface, and the third
involves a compressed spring that uncoils and pushes a ball, causing it to start moving on a level
surface. Students were asked to focus on a specific, clearly discernible change in each case,
namely the acceleration of the drill bit (first system) and the ball (second and third systems), from
rest. Students were asked to come up with an energy-tracking account that could depict the
particular instances of energy transfer and form conversion associated with each of these changes.
Students were told that they could express their response either verbally or through a diagram
(e.g., energy chain). Figure 2 summarizes the system changes involved in the task and shows the
corresponding energy-tracking accounts (in the form of energy chains) we would consider valid.
Also, Figure S1 reports the actual tasks.
Data Collection Process. The written task was administered in two variants. The first asked
students to account for the changes in the three systems without being scaffolded in any way. This
deviated from how students engaged in energy-based system analysis during the enactment of the
TLS, where they used a specially designed electronic tool that allowed constructing energy chains
by dragging and dropping shapes (rectangles or arrows) that corresponded to the relevant forms of
energy and energy transfer processes, respectively (see Papadouris & Constantinou (2011) for a
more detailed description). Thus, during instruction, energy analysis was reduced to the selection
and arrangement of the forms of energy and energy transfer processes that students deemed
relevant to the system under analysis. Removing this scaffolding while responding to the
assessment task was expected to provide a more robust indication as to the extent to which students
had developed the ability to engage in system analysis using energy. The second version was more
consistent with how students engaged in energy analysis during instruction. Specifically, it
incorporated a list containing the terms (without any additional information or further scaffolding)
for the various forms of energy and energy transfer processes dealt with as part of the TLS. The
two versions will be hereafter referred to as Task U (unscaffolded) and Task S (scaffolded). It is
important to note that Task S was only administered to students after they had completed and
returned Task U.
Interviews. We conducted interviews about 1 week after the administration of the written
task. The interview protocol comprised three parts (see Figure S2). The first asked students to
repeat the written task, without having access to their initial response. Students responded orally
and they were also encouraged to use paper and pencil to provide their response in a diagrammatic
form (e.g., energy chain). The first part of the interview protocol was primarily intended to
triangulate the coding of the written responses. Also, it served to set the stage for the discussion in
the next two parts. In the second part, after students had provided an energy-tracking account for
the relevant change(s), they were asked to elaborate more on their choices in terms of the forms of
energy and the energy transfer processes they had drawn upon. This was facilitated by the
interviewer through non-directional probes (e.g., Could you explain this? What do you mean by
that?). Provided that interview sessions are liable to serve as a learning experience for the students,
on the one hand, and given that the three systems shared some common characteristics, on the
other (e.g., mechanical work was the energy transfer process relevant to two of the systems
whereas kinetic energy pertained to all three systems), we employed counterbalancing as a means
to adjust for the possibility of carryover effects from the discussion of one system to the next.
Specifically, the order in which the three systems were discussed with the students was not kept
constant across the 30 interview sessions. Rather, it was strategically fixed so that all possible
sequences of the three systems were equally represented across the interview sessions. This
methodological decision was intended to reduce the probability of introducing bias due to
sequencing effects (Foley, 2004).
The third part engaged students in analyzing additional, specific changes associated with the
golfer-ball system. These changes include (1) the gradual deceleration of the ball until it
eventually came to rest after sliding on the ground for some distance and (2) the eventual
restoration of the temperature of the sliding surfaces that increased during their interaction. In
each case, students were asked to elaborate on their reasoning. Figure 3 illustrates how we would
like students to extend their previous energy chain (see Figure 2) so as to also account for these
additional changes. It is important to note that the protocol for this last part was not fixed for all
interviewees. Rather, the questions were adapted as the discussion evolved, based on specific
criteria, as described later in the paper (see also Figure S2). These last two parts of the interview
protocol were intended to provide insights on whether the students who selected to employ the
appropriate forms of energy, or energy transfer processes, did so in an informed manner. Also they
served to reveal specific conceptual, reasoning, or other difficulties that might have beguiled
students into non-valid choices or even non-valid justifications for seemingly correct choices.
Finally, the last part was also intended to offer insights about students’ understanding of energy
conservation and degradation and their ability to meaningfully connect them to their energy-
tracking accounts.
Data Processing
Initially, we undertook a data selection process, intended to identify the cases in which
students did provide an (even incorrect) energy-tracking account associated with the operation of
the relevant systems. The responses that fit this description were then subjected to further
processing in two steps. First, each energy-tracking account was compared and contrasted with
the corresponding target energy chain (see Figure 2). Thus, we followed a top-down approach that
relied on a specific criterion for what constitutes a correct or partially correct response. Based on
this, each individual response was coded, as a whole, on an ordinal scale, depending on the number
of elements of the targeted energy-tracking account it incorporated in a valid manner. As shown in
Figure 2, there are three elements in each case, namely (1) the form in which energy was initially
stored in the system, (2) the form in which it got stored at the end, and (3) the corresponding energy
transfer process. Thus, in all three systems, this scale ranged from zero (failure to correctly
incorporate any of the three elements) to three (valid integration of all three elements). It is
important to note that we assumed a rather conservative approach in this coding. Specifically, not
Figure 3. Target energy chain for the expanded version of the golfer-ball system.
only did we require students to identify the correct forms of energy or energy transfer process, we
also required them to incorporate those in the appropriate position in their energy-tracking
account. Thus, for example, in the case of the spring-ball system, students who incorporated
kinetic energy as the initial rather than final form of energy were not given any credit. In the second
step of data processing, the emphasis was shifted from the energy-tracking accounts as a whole to
their constituent elements, that is, the specific forms of energy and energy transfer processes they
involved. For this, we mainly drew on the interview data and we focused on both the correct
choices and the non-valid choices made by the students. This was intended to help us (1) evaluate
whether students who selected the appropriate form of energy or energy transfer process, did so in
a thoughtful manner and (2) detect systematic erroneous choices, which could be revealing of
underlying conceptual, or other difficulties. For the latter, we assumed a bottom-up approach that
drew on analytic induction (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). Specifically, we sought
evidence-based interpretations, centered on specific conceptual or other difficulties, that could
account for the observed non-valid choices. These interpretations were gradually refined through
the evaluation of their applicability to the additional occurrences of the same non-valid choices, as
we processed more and more data. Specifically, we sought for discrepant cases, as a means to
guide this refinement process and our pursuit of the interpretations that provided the best fit to the
available data. This process was implemented independently by two researchers, who had regular
meetings to compare their coding and discuss and resolve possible discrepancies.
Reliability/Validity
Construct Validity of the Assessment Tasks. An initial version of the assessment tasks was
given to two experts, who were asked to evaluate its facility to assess what they purported to assess
but also to offer suggestions for useful revisions. Both experts hold doctoral degrees in physics and
have extensive involvement in research in science education. Additionally, the task was pilot
tested through individual interviews with a random sample of 10 students (aged approximately
12 years old) drawn from a typical sixth-grade class, other than those that participated in the study.
Finally, the assessment task was field tested during the pilot-implementation of the TLS
(Papadouris & Constantinou, 2012). Based on the feedback that emerged, the task underwent
amendments in the wording, the structure and sometimes the substance of its content.
Reliability of Coding Process. Data processing was independently carried out by two
researchers as a means to promote investigator triangulation (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007).
Also, a third independent researcher was given a random sample of the data and a list of the
difficulties that were identified as possible interpretations of students’ non-valid choices, and was
asked to identify instances of these difficulties in the data. This led to very high degree of inter-
rater agreement (93%). We employed two additional ways of assessing reliability. First, we used
the x2 test to compare the outcome of the coding process of students’ written responses across the
three classes. In all cases, this yielded non-significant results indicating the stability of the coding
process. Second, we compared the energy-tracking accounts provided by the 30 interviewees on
the two occasions (written response and first part of the interview session), which also yielded a
high rate of agreement (91%).
Results
This section is organized in three parts. First, we provide an overview of the results from the
preliminary data processing intended to identify the students’ responses that involved energy-
tracking accounts. The other two parts report our findings for the two research questions.
Results from Preliminary Data Analysis

Table 1 summarizes the various categories of response that we encountered after the
enactment of the TLS and illustrates each through a representative quote from the students’ actual
responses. As shown in this table, in 99 cases (53%1, overall) in Task U and 175 cases (94%,
overall) in Task S, students provided a response that involved an energy-tracking account. This
relatively high percentage provides an encouraging indication. These responses were subjected to
further processing, whose outcome is presented next.
Research Question 1: To What Extent can Students Undertake Coherent Energy Analysis
of Specified System Changes?
This part is structured in three sub-sections, in accordance with the three components of the
research question. In each case, we synthesize the main findings from data processing that could
be brought to bear on each of these components. Where useful, we provide quotes from students’
actual responses, which have been purposefully selected so as to illustrate the aspect of students’
reasoning we are focusing on, in each case. These quotes are representative of the students who
exhibited the corresponding reasoning pattern.
a. Students’ ability to identify the forms of energy/energy transfer processes associated with
the system changes. Table 2 shows the frequency and percentage of valid choices for each
individual element of the targeted energy-tracking account in each of the three systems. In overall,
78% of the cases in Task U and 85% in Task S, students made a correct choice for either the initial
form of energy, the energy transfer process, or the final form of energy for the three system
changes. This provides a very encouraging indication. Further evidence of this comes from the
interview data, which showed that in 91% of the cases in which students had made a correct choice
they were also able to repeat that choice and 83% of them were also in a position to offer relevant
Table 1
Overview of variation within students’ responses
Task U Task S
Category or response Indicative student response f % f %
Complete (valid or non-valid) 99 53 175 94
energy-tracking account
Reference to a form of energy or “At the beginning the energy 13 7 3 2
an energy transfer process and was in the spring and it
identification of a part of the system then transferred to the ball
with the initial or the final storage through mechanical work”
of energy.
Identification of a sequence of objects “Energy was initially in the spring 32 17 5 3
that students deemed relevant to the and it transferred to the ball”
process under consideration
Attempt to interpret (mostly using energy) “The ball started moving 14 8 2 1
the changes of interest, without reference because of the energy that
to features of an energy-tracking account. was transferred to the ball
by the golf club”
Description of the change of interest “The woman struck the ball 13 7 — —
with the golf club and the
ball started to move”
No response 15 8 1 —
We collected data from 62 students since two students were absent from school on the day of the administration of the task.

Table 2
Frequency of valid choices across the three systems
Task U Task S
f % f %
Spring-Ball system
Initial form of energy (Elastic energy) 20 67 54 90
Final form of energy (Kinetic energy) 24 80 48 80
Energy transfer process (Mechanical work) 18 60 55 92
Electric drill system
Initial form of energy (Chemical energy) 35 97 57 98
Energy transfer process (Electricity) 28 78 51 88
Golfer-ball system
Initial form of energy (Chemical energy) 33 100 50 88
Energy transfer process (Mechanical work) 25 76 54 95
justifications that could be deemed valid. These justifications explicitly referred to an association
between the relevant form of energy/energy transfer process, and corresponding phenomenologi-
cal aspects of the system under consideration. Table S2 provides a representative justification we
encountered in the interview data for each of the five different elements involved in the three target
energy-tracking accounts (elastic potential energy, chemical potential energy, kinetic energy,
mechanical work, electricity).
Evidently, students’ justifications tended to be very brief and one could question the depth of
understanding that they should be credited with. Notwithstanding this demonstrated lack of rigor
or sophistication, the fact that students were able to reiterate in interview the same valid choice
they had made in their written response, on the one hand, and to provide a valid, albeit simple,
justification, on the other, offers a really encouraging indication. In addition, it is important to note
that we also encountered few instances of very rich, highly articulated justifications, which
certainly add to these indications. For instance, in the case of the golfer-ball system, six students
spontaneously identified additional cases that would also involve this form of energy as shown in
the following interview excerpt.
Researcher: Generally speaking, in which cases would you include chemical energy?
Student: In systems in which there are people doing stuff or things working with fuels or
batteries.
Researcher: Where is chemical energy stored in this case?
Student: In the woman who strikes the ball.
One point of this conversation that warrants mention relates to the attribution of chemical
energy to the golfer alone rather than to the golfer (food)-oxygen system. Further probing during
the interviews led some of the students to also mention oxygen, though they usually treated this as
a minor detail. This finding, which was very typical in our data, is revisited in the discussion
section.
Additional Insights from the Expanded Version of the Golfer-Ball System. Below, we present
results with respect to the two additional changes we asked students to account for in the interview
sessions, namely the deceleration of the ball and the eventual negation of the temporary increase in
the temperature of the sliding surfaces.
Deceleration of the ball

The two instances of mechanical work associated with the acceleration of the ball in the spring-
ball and the golfer-ball system involved an easily identifiable push between two clearly discernible
agents (spring-ball, golf club-ball, respectively). The deceleration of the ball, referred to a more
complicated situation, which precluded this intuitive phenomenological feature. The discussion of
this additional change was only reserved for the interviewees who used kinetic energy as the final
form in their initial energy-tracking account for the acceleration of the ball from rest. This condition
applied to 22 of the interviewees. Our data indicated that twelve of these 22 interviewees (54%)
were in a position to correctly extend their initial energy-tracking account by appending mechanical
work. This relatively high percentage is not surprising given that the TLS addressed systems that
involved forces opposing the movement of objects, including friction2. However, this high success
rate seems misleading; the interview data indicated that the association between friction and
mechanical work was more likely to be grounded on intuition rather than on conceptual
understanding of friction as an instance of force. Specifically, the interview data suggested that
students used the term friction in a rather colloquial manner, to refer to the actual phenomenon in
which two surfaces slide on each other rather than the ensuing force. This is illustrated in the
following student statement “. . .there is friction between the ball and the ground. The ball slides3
along the ground and gets warmer.” Even though mechanical work indeed provides a mechanism
for warming up sliding objects, what is problematic with this student statement is that it does not
include an appropriate link between mechanical work and a specific force exerted during the
gradual deceleration of the object. An additional piece of evidence from the interview data, that
further demonstrates this, is that while (at least some) students were able to associate the instance of
mechanical work with the force exerted on the ball by the golf club, they failed to do so in the case of
the frictional force. This is illustrated in the following interview excerpt.
Researcher: You used mechanical work twice in your energy chain. Why did you use
mechanical work this second time [interaction between the ball and the surface]?
Student: Because the ball stops moving. There is friction.
Researcher: Could you tell me what you mean by that?
Student: Friction. . . The ball slides against the grass.
Researcher: Earlier you said that mechanical work is used when there is a push or pull on
something that moves. Could you indicate an instance of a push or a pull here?
Student: . . . [the student did not provide a response]
Another noteworthy finding is that 7 of the 22 students (32%) drew on heat, rather than
mechanical work. This could be most likely attributed to students’ extensive experiences with
everyday situations involving temperature increase as an outcome of rubbing one surface against
another, as shown in the following interview excerpt. Incidentally, this excerpt provides further
evidence of students’ tendency to use the term friction in a rather intuitive manner.
Researcher: Why did you choose to use heat?
Student: Because of the friction between the grass and the ball which makes them warmer.
The elevated temperature of the sliding surfaces returns to the initial value
The discussion of this change was reserved for the students who explicitly referred to the
increase of the temperature of the sliding surfaces and associated that, in a meaningful manner,
with an increase in their internal energy. This condition was satisfied in 10 cases. Seven out of
these ten students were able to associate the decrease in the temperature of the ball (and the
ground) with energy transfer to the surrounding air, through heat. Also, they recognized the
corresponding increase in the internal energy of the surrounding air, as illustrated in the following
interview excerpt:
Researcher: What would happen next in this system?

Student: Their [sliding surfaces] temperature would eventually drop.
Researcher: How could you incorporate this in your energy chain?
Student: I would insert heat and then internal energy in the air.
This excerpt also alludes to an additional, very interesting finding that we encountered in the
interview data. These 10 students included both heat and internal energy in their energy-tracking
accounts and this provided an opportunity to probe their understanding of the distinction between
these two concepts. Four of these students were able to offer a very elaborate description of this
distinction, as shown in the following two interview excerpts:
Student: It [heat] is used when there is something hot and cold close to each other. The other
[internal energy] is used to show that the temperature of an object has increased.
Researcher: Could you give me an example of a situation in which you would use heat?
Student: When we bring our hands close to a lit bulb.
Researcher: Which are the cold and hot objects in this case?
Student: The lit bulb is the hot object and our hand is the cold object.
Researcher: Can you also give me an example of a situation in which you would use internal
energy but not heat?
Student: When we rub our hands. Both hands become warmer at the same time. This is
different to the case of the lit bulb and the hand. We do not have a situation in which one of the two
hands is already warm and then warms up the other4.
Researcher: Can you give me an example of a situation in which we would use both heat and
also internal energy in our energy chain?
Student: When we leave the door open during a cold night. The temperature outside is lower
than indoors.
Researcher: Can you also give me an example of a system for which we would use internal
energy but not heat?
Student: A motor4 connected in an electric circuit. It will become warmer but this is not
because it was brought close to something hot like a heater.
The fact that at least some students were able to engage in this discussion in such an insightful
manner provides an additional indication as to the extent to which they developed the ability to
undertake energy analysis of changes in physical systems. At the same time, it provides direct
evidence of their ability to differentiate between the process of heat and internal energy in a valid
manner. This is a very encouraging and promising finding whose significance becomes obvious in
view of the subtleness of this distinction and the available evidence illustrating that even physics
undergraduate students often fail to draw this distinction in a consistent manner (Loverude et al.,
2002).
b. To what extent can students synthesize the forms of energy and energy transfer processes in
coherent energy-tracking accounts? Table 3 shows the distribution of student responses across the
four levels of the ordinal scale for describing the degree of comprehensiveness and correctness of
the students’ energy tracking accounts. The table also provides an indicative, actual student
response for each case.
Overall, in approximately 60% of the cases, students correctly incorporated both forms of
energy and the corresponding energy transfer process. This percentage in Task U alone was 53%.
Thus, more than half of the students who undertook to analyze the changes without being
scaffolded, were able to construct complete, valid energy chains. Given that these systems were
not analyzed during the enactment of the TLS, students’ ability to identify the relevant forms of

Table 3
Correctness of student-constructed energy chains
Task S Task U
Number of
correctly
incorporated
Example of energy chain elements f % f %
Spring-ball system
Elastic potential Transfer through Kinetic energy 3 15 50 41 68
energy mechanical work
Elastic potential Kinetic energy 2 9 30 13 22

energy
Chemical potential Mechanical work Elastic potential 1 6 20 6 10

energy energy
Electric drill system

Chemical potential Electricity Kinetic energy 3 15 42 29 50
energy
Chemical potential Electricity Internal energy 2 16 44 26 45

energy
Chemical potential Transfer through Internal energy 1 4 11 3 5

energy mechanical work
Kinetic energy Transfer through sound 0 1 3 — —

Table 3
(Continued )
Task S Task U
Number of
correctly
incorporated
Example of energy chain elements f % f %
Golfer-Ball System
Chemical energy Transfer through work Kinetic energy 3 23 70 40 70
“In the beginning energy is stored in the form of chemical energy. Then 2 8 24 10 17
there is transfer through mechanical work. Energy is then stored in the
form of internal energy.”
Chemical potential Internal energy 1 2 6 5 9

energy
Kinetic energy Transfer through sound Elastic potential 0 — — 2 4

energy
energy and the corresponding energy transfer process and to integrate them into coherent energy
chains provides a very encouraging indication as to the extent to which they developed energy and
its features as a framework for the analysis of changes in simple physical systems. This claim
becomes even stronger in view of the rather conservative approach we had assumed in giving
credit to students for including a relevant form of energy/energy transfer process in their energy-
tracking accounts.
An additional promising indication relates to the measure of association between the score
attained by students in the three systems5. Specifically, we calculated the Gamma coefficient6 for
each of the three possible pairs of systems and this yielded statistically significant (min p-value
was 0.011) values (min ¼ 0.569, mean ¼ 0.58) in each case. This suggests that students who were
able to provide a complete energy-tracking account for any of the systems were also likely to do so
for the other two systems. This provides an encouraging indication as to the coherence underlying
students’ ability to engage with energy-based analysis of system changes.
Additional insights from the expanded version of the golfer-ball system

As mentioned earlier, 22 of the students who participated in the interview sessions, were
engaged in the process of further elaborating their initial energy-tracking accounts so as to also
describe additional changes associated with the operation of the golfer-ball system. The complete
energy chain for these changes is rather complicated in terms of both, the number of instances of
energy transfer or form conversion that students need to coordinate, but also their conceptual
complexity (e.g., frictional force). It is important to note that nine of these students were able to
construct complete energy chains, which (with the exception of mechanical work due to friction in
some cases) included all the elements of the target energy chain in a valid manner (see Figure 4).
c. To what extent can students align the features of energy conservation and degradation with
their energy-tracking accounts? In all cases, students’ energy chains ended with a form of energy,
which is consistent with the energy conservation principle. Also, all 30 interviewees consistently
referred to internal energy as the eventual form in which energy would get stored in the golfer-ball
system. Despite being consistent with energy conservation, it is questionable whether these
findings offer a reliable indication as to the students’ understanding of the essence of this feature,
let alone their ability to meaningfully coordinate it with their energy-tracking accounts. For
instance, it might be that the latter finding merely indicates students’ appreciation of internal
energy as a common energy dump. We attempted to shed more light on this issue, through the
interview data with the expanded version of the golfer-ball system. In particular, we focused on
students’ ability to align internal energy with the energy framework for systems analysis promoted
through the TLS. This framework centers on the idea that when energy is transferred to an object,
it brings about changes in certain attributes of that object. We assumed that students’ ability to
demonstrate the applicability of this idea in the case of internal energy should provide a useful
indication for their understanding about both, the features of energy conservation and degradation.
Specifically, in processing the interview data we focused on (1) the extent to which students
appreciated (changes in) temperature as an indicator of (changes in) the amount of internal energy
stored in an object7 and (2) their ability to account for the absence of a measurable change in
temperature associated with the increase in internal energy stored in the air. We found these two
conditions to be satisfied in 20 of the 22 students. These 20 students were able to associate the
internal energy of the object they referred to in their energy-tracking accounts with an increase in
its temperature. Additionally, 16 of them were in a position to readily account for the lack of a
measurable increase in the temperature of the air, due to its enormous mass, whereas they also
exhibited appreciation of the idea that internal energy in the air cannot be easily retrieved and
taken advantage of. These are illustrated in the following excerpt:
Researcher: What happened to the amount of energy initially stored in the system?
Student: It has been transferred to the air and got stored in the form of internal energy. Energy
does not disappear.
Researcher: What do we mean by that?
Student: It never disappears. It is always conserved. It just converts to other forms even though
this is not obvious sometimes.
Researcher: Can you compare chemical energy and internal energy in your energy chain in
terms of the ease with which we can take advantage of them?
Figure 4. Example of a student-constructed energy chain for the expanded version of the golfer-ball system.
Student: Chemical energy can be utilized more easily than internal energy in the air. It is not
easy to bring together the internal energy in the air and take advantage of it.
Researcher: OK. In talking about energy and energy transfer we said that whenever energy is
transferred to an object, then . . .
Student: Some change happens to that object.
Researcher: Right. Then, what about the air in this case?
Student: It got warmer. But we cannot feel this, because of its enormous size8.
Research Question 2: What Difficulties Do Students Encounter in their Attempt to
Construct Energy-Tracking Accounts?
For this research question, we focused on the non-valid choices made by the students while
constructing their energy-tracking accounts, with the intent to formulate evidence-based
interpretations that could account for their occurrence by means of specific conceptual or other
difficulties. The non-valid choices made by the students are summarized in Table 4, where they
are grouped depending on whether they refer to the initial form of energy, the energy transfer
process or the final form of energy. For each choice, the table shows both the total frequency
across all systems but also the frequency per system. In addressing this research question, we
relied on the students’ responses to Task S and the interview data. Focusing on Task S was
intended to increase the probability that students’ non-valid choices were made in an informed
manner.
Data processing led us to discern five difficulties. It is important to note that each difficulty
was evident in interview excerpts with each of the three systems involved in the assessment task.
Also, the interview excerpts that were associated with particular difficulties appeared in all the
sequences of the three systems that emerged from the counterbalancing process. There are two
additional points that need to be noted. First, it should not be assumed that there is a clear,
one-to-one correspondence between specific difficulties and non-valid choices. Rather, an
alternative perspective on this, which we deem more accurate, is that the non-valid choices are
more likely to have been induced by the combined presence of more than one difficulty (probably,
even by additional difficulties not manifest in our data). Second, there were non-valid choices,
Table 4
Overview of non-valid choices
Task U Task S
Non-valid choices Total Per System Total Per System
Initial form of energy f % SB ED GB f % SB ED GB
Kinetic Energy 3 5 2 1 – 12 15 4 1 7
Chemical energy 8 12 8 – – 2 3 2 – –
Energy transfer process
Heat 5 7 1 3 1 4 5 2 – 2
Sound – – – – – 1 1 – – 1
Mechanical work 4 6 – 4 – 7 9 – 7 –
No energy transfer process 19 29 11 1 7 3 4 3 – –
Final form of energy
Internal energy 22 33 4 14 4 45 56 9 23 13
Elastic energy 2 3 2 – – 5 6 3 – 2
No final form of energy 3 5 – 3 – 1 1 – 1 –
SB, ED, and GB denote the spring-ball, electric drill and golfer-ball systems, respectively.

which we have not been able to account for by means of specific difficulties (e.g., the inclusion of
elastic potential energy as the final form of energy in the golfer-ball system). We do acknowledge
the possibility that these choices could be indeed reflecting well-reasoned, albeit non-valid,
conceptualizations of certain forms of energy or energy transfer processes, which our data did not
suffice to uncover. However, in an attempt to safeguard against the danger of drawing inferences
far removed from the available data, we selected to treat them as random, rather than well-
reasoned choices that could bear implications for possible difficulties. Next, we elaborate on each
difficulty. Where useful we provide illustrative quotes from students’ responses so as to highlight
certain aspects of their reasoning.
1. Lack of appreciation of the need to coordinate the scope of the energy-tracking account and
the specific change under analysis. This difficulty was evident in students’ tendency to focus on
changes other than those specified in the task. One such example from the spring-ball system,
relates to the selection of chemical energy, rather than elastic potential energy, as the initial form of
energy. Interview data suggested that this choice might have emerged as a result of students’
tendency to arbitrarily extend the scope of the system so as to also include an event that could
account for the act of compressing the spring. This is illustrated in the following interview excerpt:
Researcher: Why did you choose to start with chemical energy?
Student: Because someone pushed the spring. This is why it got compressed.
Another illustration of this same difficulty refers to the selection of internal energy, rather
than kinetic energy, as the final form of energy in all three systems. Interview data suggested that
this choice was intended by students as a means to represent the termination of the objects’ motion,
which, again, extended beyond the scope of the task in terms of the initial change they were asked
to focus on. This is illustrated in the following excerpt.
Researcher: Why did you use internal energy here? What does it show?
Student: It shows that the ball stopped moving.
This finding alludes to the well documented difficulty associated with the ability to effectively
deal with the notion of system choice (Lindsey, Heron, & Shaffer, 2012). In thermodynamics, the
boundaries of systems (temporal or spatial) are not fixed; they are selected in an arbitrary, albeit
purposeful manner, so as to cohere with the focus of the analysis in each case (Turns, 2006).
However, once delineated it is important to remain true to that choice throughout the analysis.
Incidentally, it is important to note that difficulties with system choice in energy-based analysis of
system operation are quite persistent and common even among undergraduate physics students
(Lindsey, Heron, & Shaffer, 2012).
2. Lack of appreciation of the fact that energy-tracking accounts are direction-sensitive.
Often, students’ energy-tracking accounts included relevant forms of energy in a non-valid
position in the sequence. For instance, this occurred in the cases in which students selected to
employ kinetic energy as the initial, rather than the final form of energy. Interview data suggest
that this was more likely to have ensued indirectly, as a by-product of two specific conditions.
First, these students seemed to recognize the relevance of kinetic energy to the change of interest
and intended to include it in their energy-tracking account. Second, it is likely that they had
already committed to use another form as its concluding part. Specifically, in the vast majority of
these cases, students employed internal energy as the final form of energy, which, as discussed
later, was a prevalent, systematic non-valid choice, associated with specific conceptual
difficulties. Provided that the position of the final form in the energy chain was already reserved
for another form, students were liable to end up incorporating kinetic energy at the beginning of
their energy-tracking account. This interpretation suggests that this choice is more likely to reflect
a consequential, as opposed to a well-reasoned or systematic, choice. In any case, these students
did not seem to appreciate that the role of a form of energy in describing a particular change is
contingent on how it is actually incorporated in the energy chain. Employing kinetic energy as the
initial form of energy refers to a very different change than acceleration from rest. One such
change could be the deformation of an object as a result of its collision with a massive, moving
object.
3. Difficulty to map kinetic energy onto specific phenomenological aspects of systems. The
most prevalent non-valid choice involved the selection of internal energy, rather than kinetic
energy, as the final form of energy in all three systems. The following interview excerpt with the
expanded version of the golfer-ball system offers a revealing illustration of this.
Researcher: Why did you select to use internal energy? [as the concluding part of the energy
chain]
Student: Because when the ball stops moving, energy gets stored in the air in this form.
Researcher: Are we interested in why the ball started moving in the first place or why it might
eventually stop moving?
Student: The first. Why it started moving.
Researcher: OK. Since we are only interested in why it started moving, would you change in
any way the energy chain you drew?
Student: I would erase internal energy and use kinetic energy instead.
Researcher: Which objects possess kinetic energy?
Student: The moving objects.
Researcher: Now let’s assume that the ball eventually stops moving. How would you change
your energy chain so as to also include this latter change?
Student: I would erase kinetic energy and replace it with internal energy.
There are two noteworthy points in this conversation, which was rather common in our
interview data. First, this student did not include kinetic energy from the outset. She only did so after
further probing by the interviewer. Second, the kinetic energy was not retained in the complete
energy-tracking account for both the initial acceleration of the ball from rest and the subsequent
termination of its motion. Given that students were asked to illustrate both, the initial acceleration of
the ball from rest and its subsequent deceleration while moving along the surface, these two points
seem to be indicating students’ insufficient appreciation of the role of kinetic energy in energy-
tracking accounts and their tendency to reduce it to a rather superfluous component.
One might be tempted to conclude that this response reflects students’ flexibility in
strategically adjusting the level of analysis. That is, one could argue that the students who
responded in this way might have just decided to provide an energy-tracking account that
focuses on the initial state at which the ball was at rest, before being struck by the golfer, and the
final state at which the ball eventually halted to rest again, while glossing over all intermediate
changes that occurred in-between these two states (initial acceleration and subsequent
deceleration of the ball). This perspective ascribes students with a very sophisticated and flexible
understanding of energy-based analysis, which does not cohere with the data reported in this
study. Rather, our data suggest that this type of response is more likely to be indicative of
students’ difficulty to appreciate kinetic energy and some associate energy transfer process as a
necessary component of any energy chain purporting to describe changes in speed (including its
decrease to zero).
4. Failure to draw a valid distinction between mechanical work and kinetic energy. Our data
revealed that (at least some) students erroneously believed that changes in speed are represented
by mechanical work, rather than a combination of mechanical work (or some other energy transfer
process) and kinetic energy. Evidence of this comes from two different non-valid choices made by
the students. The first relates to the cases in which students’ energy-tracking accounts totally
excluded kinetic energy (as the final form of energy) and resorted instead to internal energy, as
discussed earlier. The second relates to students’selection to employ mechanical work, rather than
electricity, as the transfer process in the case of the electric drill system. This non-valid choice,
which accounts for 9% of the non-valid choices overall, could be attributed, at least partly, to
students’ tendency to conceive of mechanical work as the part of the energy chain that denotes
(changes in) motion. This probably led students to include mechanical work so as to depict the
motion (acceleration from rest) of the drill bit. This is illustrated in the following interview
excerpt, which captures the part of the conversation where one of the students who made this
choice justified why she included each of the three components (chemical energy, mechanical
work, kinetic energy) in her energy-tracking account. This excerpt is quite revealing of a sense of
confusion between mechanical work and kinetic energy, in terms of their role in describing
changes in velocity.
Researcher: What about this one [mechanical work]
Student: This is because the drill begun spinning.
Researcher: What about the next one? [kinetic energy]
Student: That is because it moves, spins.
Researcher: Let me see if I have understood that. . . which part of the energy chain shows that
the drill started spinning?
Student: . . .I think it is this one [mechanical work]. Or maybe kinetic energy? Could it be
both? I am really not sure.
5. Failure to meaningfully construe kinetic energy as a form of stored energy. Some students
expressed the idea that while the ball moves, energy is still “in transfer” and it only gets stored after
it stops, as illustrated in the excerpt below. Thus, they essentially precluded the acceleration of an
object (or the continuous motion of an object for that matter) as a legitimate end stage for their
energy analysis. Instead, they arbitrarily imposed the termination of its motion as the final stage.
Incidentally, this flawed idea could be, at least partly, held responsible for the selection to employ
internal energy as the final form of energy, discussed earlier.
Researcher: Why did you use mechanical work in your energy chain?
Student: Because the ball is moving.
Researcher: What about internal energy?
Student: To show that the ball has stopped moving.
Researcher: Could you elaborate on this a little bit more?
Student: While the ball is moving there is something going on. Energy gets stored only after
this is over. Energy gets stored only after the ball stops moving.
By abstracting from these data, one could express this difficulty in a more general form.
Specifically, it could be argued that students tend to perceive the presence of a running process in a
system (e.g., the continuous motion of an object) as indicating that the system is in a transient,
intermediary state, which cannot serve as a legitimate end state for energy analysis. Thus, energy
in the system gets stored only after these running processes are terminated. However, given that
our data do not provide direct evidence of this more generalized expression of the difficulty, this
inference should be treated with caution.
Discussion
This section is organized in two parts. The first revisits the research questions posed in this
study and summarizes the corresponding findings from data analysis. The second discusses wider
implications ensuing from the study with respect to teaching and learning about energy.
Reflecting on the Study’s Research Outcomes

The first research question refers to the investigation of the extent to which students can
undertake coherent energy analysis of specific system changes. The empirical data presented in
this study suggest that students became well positioned to develop energy and its features as a
framework for analyzing changes in physical systems. It should be stressed that the limited size of
the sample does not allow for generalizing to the population of students at this grade level.
However, this limitation notwithstanding, it is the case that this study has led to very important
findings about students’ ability to develop energy as a framework for analyzing simple physical
phenomena. To reiterate, our findings have suggested that, to a large extent, students were able to
(1) identify the forms of energy that change, in relation to the specified system changes, and the
corresponding energy transfer processes, (2) synthesize them into coherent energy-tracking
accounts, and (3) align their energy-tracking accounts with the features of energy conservation
and degradation. It is important that students at such a young age can be scaffolded to develop
coherent energy-based interpretations of the behavior of physical systems. Such qualitative
interpretations lend personal value to the coherence that is necessary for formulating predictions
or for extending interpretive accounts to additional, previously unfamiliar, systems. In addition,
coherent qualitative understandings can serve as a robust foundation for subsequent refinements
as well as for constructing meaningful quantitative accounts.
The second research question referred to the identification of the difficulties encountered by
the students in their attempt to construct energy-tracking accounts. Data processing led us to
identify and document a number of difficulties (see Table S3 for a synopsis of these difficulties).
We believe that these findings could provide implications for the refinement of the specific TLS.
For instance, they could guide the development of additional activities that could serve to confront
students with these difficulties and provide them with appropriate support to overcome them.
Also, and most importantly, they could inform attempts to develop teaching materials about
energy more broadly.
Broader Implications for Teaching and Learning about Energy
Implications for the Developmental Appropriateness of Energy as a Learning Objective. In

formal science, energy is commonly conceived of as an accounting scheme (Feynman, Leighton,
& Sands, 1963). Evidently, this perspective is very much removed from the level of competence
that could be reasonably expected of students at the pre-college level. The data presented in this
study suggest that, given an appropriate instructional structure, it is feasible to help students
develop, in a coherent manner, energy as a qualitative framework for analyzing systems, from an
early stage (e.g., upper grades of elementary school/lower grades of middle school). To reiterate,
the main ideas comprising this qualitative framework can be summarized as follows: (1) the
conceptual elaboration of energy can be usefully coupled with the elaboration of certain aspects of
the nature of science, (2) energy can be introduced as an entity in a theoretical framework for
analyzing systems and interactions, (3) the energy of a system can be transferred, transformed,
conserved, and degraded, (4) these features can be used to generate interpretations of the operation
of a diverse range of systems, (5) in representing these models, it is important to distinguish
between forms of energy (states) and energy transfer processes (processes). We recognize that this
framework is incomplete. For instance, it precludes quantitative analysis, which is perhaps the
most important aspect of energy in science. However, we do believe that it is an epistemologically
and conceptually coherent framework that renders energy accessible to students at a fairly early
stage. We conceive of this as an initial, working framework that could (and should) be further
elaborated in subsequent grade levels, when more of the necessary conceptual, cognitive,
reasoning, or epistemological resources will more likely be in place, so as to gradually become

more closely aligned with how energy is understood and used in the realm of science.
Implications for the Debate on the Instructional Value of Forms of Energy. The instructional
value of the idea of forms of energy (Falk, Hermann, & Schmid, 1983; Kaper & Goedhart, 2002)
has attracted much attention in the research literature. Central to this debate is the concern that
students might end up developing and using technical terms that do not carry substantial meaning.
The data presented in this study demonstrate that, after the implementation of the TLS, students
were able to effectively describe system changes in terms of energy, by drawing on forms of energy
and energy transfer processes in a manner that could be deemed valid. Additionally, interview data
showed that students, to a large extent, were in a position to use technical terminology in an
informed and meaningful manner as a result of the associations they had been guided to establish
between the various forms of energy/energy transfer processes and corresponding phenomenologi-
cal features of systems. Of course, despite these encouraging indications, the data have also
revealed certain conceptual difficulties, such as the confusion between mechanical work and kinetic
energy. This illustrates the need to provide adequate support to the students so as to meaningfully
construe the various forms of energy and draw relevant distinctions.
An additional finding that has emerged from the data relates to the possibility to address the
idea that energy manifests itself in different forms separately from the idea of form conversion.
These two ideas have been typically conflated in teaching practice, but also in the research
literature, into a single entity. The data presented in this study suggest that students were able to
effectively employ the first of these ideas (by constructing energy-tracking accounts specifying
the relevant forms of energy/energy transfer processes) without drawing on the latter. Specifically,
there were no explicit references, by the students, to the feature of form conversion, other than the
implicit reference inherent in the energy chains they had constructed. The possibility to dissociate
these two ideas could be useful from an instructional perspective: identifying an object or a system
that stores energy and connecting its behavior with a corresponding form of energy takes the
emphasis away from problematic ideas, such as energy flowing or energy existing in different
kinds (Constantinou & Papadouris, 2012).
Implications for What Would Be Realistic Learning Objectives about Energy for Middle
School: Reflections on Possible Boundary Conditions. The data from this study provide evidence
for possible boundary conditions in terms of the depth of the elaboration of aspects of energy that
would reasonably fall within the reach of middle school students. This could serve a dual role.
First, it could serve to delineate the boundaries of what students can (or cannot) achieve in terms of
understanding about energy when supported through specially designed TLS. Second, they could
support the process of developing a learning progression (Duschl et al., 2007; Jin & Anderson,
2012; Krajcik et al., 2014) about energy by informing instructional decisions on what to teach at
what grade level. Below, we consider findings relating to two possible boundary conditions
revealed by our data. The first refers to mechanical work as an energy transfer process. Students’
tendency to assume a rather colloquial notion of force, restricted to situations involving
observable, clearly discernible instances of push or pull between macroscopic objects in contact,
prevented them from construing friction as a force. Thus, while they could meaningfully draw on
mechanical work to account for the acceleration of the ball from rest in the case of the golfer-ball
and the spring-ball systems, they failed to do so in the case of the ball that decelerated due to the
frictional force. This finding has implications for the delineation of the range of systems that
students could be usefully engaged with at this grade level. For instance, it would make sense to
restrict this range to simple situations involving clearly discernible instances of mechanical work
(e.g., objects accelerating from rest as a result of a push by another macroscopic agent in contact)
and postpone more advanced cases (e.g., mechanical work associated with frictional force) for a
subsequent stage.
Another example of a possible boundary condition relates to the notion of energy being stored
in multi-component systems. Our data suggest that, to a large extent, students failed to
competently deal with this idea. For instance, in the golfer-ball system they tended to exclusively
attribute chemical energy to the golfer alone, neglecting the role of oxygen. This of course is not
surprising. Reasoning with this idea is inherently complicated and it might not be realistic to
expect students at this age to exhibit rigor in this respect. One reason for this is that this idea is
entangled with system thinking skills (Ben-Zvi Assaraf & Orion, 2010). Another, probably more
influential reason, is that it posits conceptual understanding of the mechanisms that account for
how energy gets stored (or released) as a result of the interactions between the relevant objects. For
instance, meaningfully construing chemical potential energy as stored in the food-oxygen system
posits functional understanding of their interaction through the relevant chemical reactions.
Surprising or not, students’ inability to cope with the complexity of the notion of energy being
stored in interacting objects has implications for the features of the systems that could be usefully
analyzed by students at this grade level. There are certain forms of energy that, assuming a
macroscopic level of analysis, could be usefully ascribed to individual objects. These include, for
example, elastic potential energy in a stretched/compressed object or kinetic energy, in a moving
object. There are also forms for which the complexity associated with the system approach to
energy storage could be also bypassed without critical compromising of content validity.
Chemical potential energy in the food-oxygen system is a case in point. Attributing chemical
energy to either the food alone or the food-oxygen system in the golfer-ball system leads to
seemingly identical energy chains. Provided that allowing students to employ this simplified
conceptualization of chemical potential energy does not incur critical shortcomings, it could be
argued that this might even serve as a productive stepping stone towards more valid
conceptualizations (Lacy et al., 2014). However, there might be cases in which this simplification
does not appear productive in that it could compromise content validity in a detrimental manner. In
this light, it is important to stress the need to elaborate a typology of systems that distinguishes
those which could lend themselves to this simplified perspective in a productive manner. This
could serve as a useful resource in developing a learning progression for energy since it could
support the process of making informed choices about the possible range of systems that could be
usefully explored by the students at various stages of this progression.
We would like to thank the Cyprus Research Foundation for supporting the research
presented in this paper through the programs PENEK20/02 and ENISX/0504/15. We would
also like to thank Prof. Stamatis Vokos and Prof. Zacharias Zacharia for valuable and
insightful comments on draft versions of this manuscript.
Notes
1
The total number of cases was 186; this number is the product of the number of students who
participated in the assessment (62) and the number of systems they were asked to account for (3).
2
Students were engaged in the analysis of simple systems involving clearly discernible
instances of opposing forces (e.g., a push or pull on a moving object) and they then moved to more
complicated systems that precluded such apparent interactions (e.g., cases in which an object
slides to a halt due to friction). In that context, we sought to introduce friction as a force that
opposes the movement of objects that slide along a surface and to link that with energy transfer
through mechanical work, which, in this case, tends to gradually decrease the amount of kinetic
energy stored in the moving object (along with the simultaneous increase in the internal energy of
the surfaces that slide against each other).
3
The physics of this situation is perplexed by the differential role of friction depending on
whether the ball rolls without slipping or slides along the surface. Specifically, in the former case,
there is no energy transfer by means of mechanical work, since the force of friction is always
applied on a point that is instantaneously at rest. This complexity extends well beyond what would
be a reasonable discussion with students of this age. Therefore, all student statements that
associated friction with the decrease of the kinetic energy of the ball, by means of mechanical
work, were accepted as valid, under the tacit assumption that the ball was sliding along the surface,
which, of course, was not revealed to the students.
4
This system was discussed with students during the enactment of the TLS. However, the
connection with this system was spontaneously made by the student in the interview.
5
This measure was calculated using students’ performance on Task U.
6
This coefficient is appropriate for cases of interval scales with a limited number of levels
and, hence a high concentration of cases on each level (Sheskin, 2000).
7
An increase in the temperature of an object indicates an increase in the amount of internal
energy stored in that object. However, an increase in the internal energy of an object does not
necessarily imply an increase in its temperature. Given the characteristics of the student population
relevant to this study, the idea of using temperature as an indicator of changes in the amount of
internal energy stored in an object was treated in a rather loose manner during the enactment of the
TLS. Thus, we did not explicitly differentiate between the two situations mentioned above.
8
It was not obvious whether students differentiated between the mass (which is the decisive
factor in this case) and the volume of the air. During the instruction and the interview sessions we
systematically referred to mass though we did not purposefully elaborate this distinction.
References
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of reflective explicit activity-
based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37, 295–317.
Arons, A. (1999). Development of energy concepts in introductory physics courses. American Journal
of Physics, 67(12), 1063–1067.
Becker, N. M., & Cooper, M. M. (2014). College Chemistry Students’ Understanding of Potential
Energy and Atomic-molecular Interactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Advance online
publication 51(6), 789–808.
Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2010). System thinking skills at the elementary school level. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 540–563.
Boohan, R., & Ogborn, J. (1996). Differences, energy and change: A simple approach through pictures.
School Science Review, 78(283), 13–19.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. 6th ed. London:
Routledge Falmer.
Constantinou, C. P., & Papadouris, N. (2012). An epistemologically informed teaching and learning
approach on the topic of energy for students aged 11-14: Rationale and empirical results from a pilot
implementation. Studies in Science Education, 48(2), 161–186.
Dauer, J. M., Miller, H. K., & Anderson, C. W. (2014). Conservation of energy: An analytical tool for
student accounts of carbon-transforming processes. In R. F. Chen, A. Eisenkraft, D. Fortus, J. Krajcik, K.
Neumann, J. Nordine, & A. Scheff (Eds.), Teaching and Learning of Energy in K-12 Education (pp. 47–61).
London: Springer.
Ding, L., Chabay, R., & Sherwood, B. (2013). How do students in an innovative principle-based
mechanics course understand energy concepts? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), 722–747.

Driver, R., & Millar, R. (Eds.). (1986). Energy matters. University of Leeds.
Driver, R., & Warrington, L. (1985). Students’ use of the principle of energy conservation in problem
situations. Physics Education, 20, 171–176.
Duit, R. (1984). Learning the energy concept in school-empirical results from the Philippines and West
Germany. Physics Education, 19, 59–66.
Domenech, L. J., Gil-Perez, G., Gras-Mart, A., Guisasola, J., Martnez-Torregrosa, J., Salinas, J., . . .
Valdes, P. (2007). Teaching of energy issues: A debate proposal for a global reorientation. Science &
Education, 16(1), 43–64.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A. & Shouse, A. W., Editors (2007). Taking science to school:
Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D.C: NRC.
Falk, G., Herrmann, F., & Schmid, B. (1983). Energy forms or energy carriers? American Journal of
Physics, 51(12), 1074–1077.
Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. (1963). The Feynman lectures on physics. Massachussetts:
Addison-Wesley.
Foley, H. (2004). Counterbalancing. In M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. Liao (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
social science research methods (pp. 206–207). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & DeBoer, G. E. (2014). Developing and using distractor-driven multiple-
choice assessments aligned to ideas about energy forms, transformation, transfer, and conservation. In Chen,
R. F., Eisenkraft, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Neumann, K., Nordine, J., & Scheff, A. (Eds.), Teaching and
learning of energy in K-12 education (pp. 103–133). London: Springer.
Holton, G., & Brush, G. S. (2001). Physics, the human adventure: From Copernicus to Einstein and
beyond (3rd ed.). Rutgers University Press.
Jin, H. & Anderson, C. W. (2012). A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1149–1180.
Kaper, W. H., & Goedhart, M. J. (2002). ’Forms of energy’, an intermediary language on the road of
thermodynamics? Part I. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 81–95.
Kesidou, S., & Duit, R. (1993). Students’ conceptions of the second law of thermodynamics - An
interpretive study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(1), 85–106.
Koliopoulos, D. (1997). Epistemological and didactic dimensions of the curriculum construction
processes: The case of the didactic transposition and learning of the energy concept (in Greek). Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Patras, Greece.
Krajcik, J., Chen, R. F., Eisenkraft, A., Fortus, D., Neumann, K., Nordine, J., & Scheff, A. (2014).
Conclusion and summary comments: teaching energy and associated research efforts. In Chen, R. F.,
Eisenkraft, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Neumann, K., Nordine, J., & Scheff, A. (Eds.), Teaching and Learning
of Energy in K-12 Education (pp. 357–363). London: Springer.
Knight, R. D. (1997). Physics: A contemporary perspective, Volume II. Massachussetts: Addison-
Wesley.
Lacy, S., Tobin, R. G., Wiser, M., & Crissman, S. (2014). Looking through the energy lens: a proposed
learning progression for energy in grades 3–5. In Chen, R. F., Eisenkraft, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Neumann,
K., Nordine, J., & Scheff, A. (Eds.), Teaching and Learning of Energy in K-12 Education (pp. 241–265).
London: Springer.
Lawson, R. A., & McDermott, L. C. (1987). Student understanding of the work-energy and impulse-
momentum theorems. American Journal of Physics, 55(9), 811–817.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman
(Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Lee, H. S. & Liu, O. L. (2010). Assessing learning progression of energy concepts across middle school
grades: The knowledge integration perspective. Science Education, 94(4), 665–688.
Lindsey. B. A., Heron, P. R. L., & Shaffer, P. S. (2012). Student understanding of energy: Difficulties
related to systems. American Journal of Physics, 80(2), 154–163.
Liu, X., & McKeough, A. (2005). Developmental growth in students’ concept of energy: Analysis of
selected items from the TIMSS database. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 493–517.

Loverude, E. M., Kautz, H. C., & Heron, P. R. L. (2002). Student understanding of the first law of
thermodynamics: Relating work to the adiabatic compression of an ideal gas. American Journal of Physics,
70(2), 137–148.
McDermott and the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington (1996). Physics by
inquiry. Volume II. Wiley, New York, USA.
Millar, R. (2014). Towards a Research-Informed Teaching Sequence for Energy. In Chen, R. F.,
Eisenkraft, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Neumann, K., Nordine, J., & Scheff, A. (Eds.), Teaching and learning
of energy in K-12 education (pp. 187–206). London: Springer.
Neumann, K., Viering, T., Boone, W. J., & Fischer, H. E. (2013). Towards a learning progression of
energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 162–188.
Nordine, J., Krajcik, J., & Fortus, D. (2011) Transforming energy instruction in middle school to support
integrated understanding and future learning. Science Education, 95, 577–770.
NRC (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas.
Washington D.C.: The National Academy Press.
Papadouris, N., Constantinou, C., & Kyratsi, T. (2008). Students’ use of the energy model to account for
changes in physical systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 444–469.
Papadouris, N. & Constantinou, C. P. (2011). A philosophically informed teaching proposal on the topic
of energy for students aged 11–14. Science & Education, 20(10), 961–979.
Papadouris, N. & Constantinou, C. P. (2012). Middle school students using energy analysis in diverse
phenomena. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 6(1), 73–87.
Papadouris, N. & Constantinou, C. P. (2014a). Distinctive features and underlying rationale of a
philosophically-informed approach for energy teaching. In Chen, R. F., Eisenkraft, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J.,
Neumann, K., Nordine, J., & Scheff, A. (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp. 207–
221). London: Springer.
Papadouris, N. & Constantinou, C. P. (2014b). An exploratory investigation of 12-year-old students’
ability to appreciate certain aspects of the nature of science through a specially designed approach in the
context of energy. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 755–782.
Quinn, H. R. (2014). A physicist’s musings on teaching about energy. In Chen, R. F., Eisenkraft, A.,
Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Neumann, K., Nordine, J., & Scheff, A. (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-
12 education (pp. 15–36). London: Springer.
Trumper, R. (1993). Children’s energy concepts. International Journal of Science Education. 15(2),
139–148.
Scherr, R. E., Close, H. G., McKagan, S. B. & Vokos, S. (2012). Representing energy. I. Representing a
substance ontology for energy. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research 8(2),
020114 1–11.
Schmid, G. B. (1982). Energy and its carriers. Physics Education, 17, 213–218.
Sheskin, D. J. (2000). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures, second edition.
New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Solomon, J. (1992). Getting to know about energy: In school and in society. London: Falmer Press.
Turns, S. R. (2006). Thermodynamics: Concepts and applications, Cambridge University Press, New
York.
Van Heuvelen, A., & Zou, X. (2001). Multiple representations of work-energy processes. American
Journal of Physics, 69(2), 184–194.
Vokos, S. (2010). Understanding forms of energy through testing novel cases. Paper presented at the
summer meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers, Omaha, NE.
Warren, J. W. (1986). At what stage should energy be taught? Physics Education, 21, 154–156.
Watts, D. M., & Gilbert, J. K. (1983). Enigmas in school science: Students’ conceptions for scientifically
associated words. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1(2), 161–171.
Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article at the
publisher’s web-site.

Research Article Investigating Middle School Students' Ability To Develop Energy As A Framework For Analyzing Simple Physical Phenomena

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Research Article Investigating Middle School Students' Ability To Develop Energy As A Framework For Analyzing Simple Physical Phenomena

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 53, NO. 1, PP.

Investigating Middle School Students’ Ability to Develop Energy as a

Learning in Science Group, Department of Educational Sciences, University of Cyprus,

Received 8 December 2014; Accepted 31 March 2015

Abstract: We investigated whether it is possible for 12-year-old students to develop a qualitative

Understanding energy is widely recognized as a major learning objective of school science,

Correspondence to: Nicos Papadouris; E-mail: npapa@ucy.ac.cy

# 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Figure 1. An epistemologically oriented perspective to teaching and learning about energy.

Purpose of the Study

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Results from Preliminary Data Analysis

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Deceleration of the ball

Researcher: What would happen next in this system?

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Elastic potential Kinetic energy 2 9 30 13 22

Chemical potential Mechanical work Elastic potential 1 6 20 6 10

Electric drill system

Chemical potential Electricity Internal energy 2 16 44 26 45

Chemical potential Transfer through Internal energy 1 4 11 3 5

Kinetic energy Transfer through sound 0 1 3 — —

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Chemical potential Internal energy 1 2 6 5 9

Kinetic energy Transfer through sound Elastic potential 0 — — 2 4

Additional insights from the expanded version of the golfer-ball system

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Reflecting on the Study’s Research Outcomes

Implications for the Developmental Appropriateness of Energy as a Learning Objective. In

reasoning, or epistemological resources will more likely be in place, so as to gradually become

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi