Abstract
One of the main differences between novice and expert problem solving in physics is that novices mostly construct problem representations from objects and events in the experimental situation, whereas experts construct representations closer to theoretical terms and entities. A main difficulty in physics is in interrelating these two levels, i.e. in modelling. Relatively little research has been done on this problem, most work in AI, psychology and physics education having concentrated on how students use representations in problem solving, rather than on the complex process of how they construct them. We present a study that aims to explore how students construct models for energy storage, transformation and transfers in simple experimental situations involving electricity and mechanics. The study involved detailed analysis of problem solving dialogues produced by pairs of students, and AI modelling of these processes. We present successively more refined models that are capable of generating ideal solutions, solutions for individual students for a single task, then models for individuals across different tasks. The students' construction of energy models can be modelled in terms of the simplest process of modelling — establishing term to term relations between elements of the object/event ‘world’ and the theory/model world, with underlying linear causal reasoning. Nevertheless, our model is unable to take into account more sophisticated modelling processes in students. In conclusion we therefore describe future work on the development of a new model that could take such processes into account.
1. “CHENE” = “CHaîne ENErgetique”, or “Energy Chain”. (In French “Chêne” also means “oak”).
2. Throughout the rest of the paper we use the following simple notation in order to avoid possible confusion between “modelling” as a process performed by the students, in the domain of physics, and “AI modelling” of the former modelling process: students' modelling in physics = modelling SP ; AI modelling (of modelling SP ) = modelling AI .
3. It has not been necessary to use more sophisticated strategies at the stage of our work reported here. The next system, modelCHENE, will directly address this issue.
4. Note that what we refer to in this context as “problem solving” may in another context be viewed as construction of a qualitative representation for subsequent quantitative problem solving.
5. The protocols indicate that students use this as a kind of anchor in their reasoning-some students returning to it in order to resolve impasses. As the current problem solver provides no mechanism for handling impasses we cannot model the reuse of information in any meaningful way.
6. We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this example.
7. This provides the minimum distinction for our initial needs.
8. Though there is a difficult step in deciding that the moving object really is the last unassigned object-since that requires setting aside any need to assign roles to, for example, connecting strings etc.
9. At the moment we have to provide psCHENE with slightly different rulesets: providing rules with priorities would be more convenient.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, J.R. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Baker, M.J. (1994). A model for negotiation in teaching-learning dialogues. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 5(2): 199–254.
Bental, D., Tiberghien, A., Baker, M.J. & Megalakaki, O. (1995). Analyse et modélisation de l'apprentissage des notions de l'énergie dans l'environnement CHENE, in D. Guin, J-F. Nicaud & D. Py, eds., Environnements Interactifs d'Apprentissage avec Ordinateur, Tôme 2., 137–148. Paris: Eyrolles.
Brown, J.S. & VanLehn, K. (1980). Repair theory: A generative theory of bugs in procedural skills. Cognitive Science 4: 379–426.
Brownston, L. Farrell, R. Kant, E. & Martin, N. (1985). Programming Expert Systems in OPS5: An Introduction to Rule-Based Programming. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Clancey, W. (1987). Knowledge-Based Tutoring: The GUIDON Program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Closset, J.L. (1983) Le raisonnement séquentiel en électrocinétique. Thèse 3ème cycle, Université Paris 7.
De Kleer, J. (1986). An assumption based TMS. Artificial Intelligence 28(2): 128–162.
Doyle, J. (1979). A truth maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence 12: 231–272.
Driver, R., Guesne, E. & Tiberghien, A., eds. (1984). Children's Ideas in Science. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K.D. & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence 41: 1–63.
Gardenförs, P. (1988). Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Greeno, J. (1989). Situations, mental models and generative knowledge, in D. Klahr & K. Votovsky, eds., Complex Information Processing: The Impact of H.A. Simon (pp. 285–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum.
Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J. (1979). Procedures et structures. Archives de Psychologie XLVII(181): 165–176.
Johsua, S. & Dupin, J.J. (1986) L'électrocinétique du collège à l'université. Bulletin de l'Union des Physiciens, no 683: 779–799.
Langley, P. (1983). Exploring the space of cognitive architectures. Behaviour Research Methods and Instrumentation 15(2): 289–299.
Larkin, J. (1983) The role of problem representation in physics, in D. Gentner & A.L. Stevens, eds., Mental Models (pp. 75–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Lewis, A.B. (1989). Training students to represent arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology 81: 521–531.
McDermott, L. (1984). Critical review of the research in the domain of mechanics, in Research on Physics Education: Proceedings of the First International Workshop (pp. 139–182). Paris: CNRS.
Newell, A. & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
O'Malley, C., Draper, S.W. & Riley, M.S. (1984). Constructive interaction: a method for studying human-computer interaction, in B. Shackel, ed., Proceedings of INTERACT' 84 (pp. 269–274). Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland): The Netherlands.
Richard, J-F. (1990). Les Activités Mentales. Paris: Armand Colin.
Sanderson, P.M. (1989) Verbalizable knowledge and skilled task performance: association, dissociation, and mental models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learing Memory and Cognition 15(4): 729–747.
Shipstone, D.M. (1985) On children's use of conceptual models in reasoning about current electricity, in R. Duit, W. Jung & C.v. Rhöneck, eds., Aspects of Understanding Electricity. Proceeding of an International Workshop (pp. 73–93). Ludwisburg 1984 (IPN, Kiel).
Shipstone, D.M., von Rhöneck, C., Jung, W., Kärrqvist, C. Dupin, J.J., Johsua, S. & Licht, P. (1987). A study of students' understanding of electricity in five European countries. International Journal of Science Education 3: 303–316.
Tiberghien, A. (1984). Critical review of the research aimed at elucidating the sense that notions of temperature and heat have for the students aged 10 to 16 years, in Research on Physics Education: Proceedings of the First International Workshop (pp. 75–90). Paris: CNRS.
Tiberghien, A. (1994). Modelling as a basis for analyzing teaching-learning situations. Learning and Instruction 4: 71–87.
Trowbridge, D.E. & McDermott, L.C. (1981). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension. American Journal of Physics 49: 242.
Viennot, L. (1993). Temps et causalité dans les raisonnements des étudiants en physique. Didaskalia 1: 13–27.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Devi, R., Tiberghien, A., Baker, M. et al. Modelling students' construction of energy models in physics. Instr Sci 24, 259–293 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00118052
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00118052