Promoting in solving electric circuit problems via voltage tracking and division

Aungtinee Kittiravechote 1 *
More Detail
1 Program of General Science, Faculty of Education, Bansomdejchaopraya Rajabhat University, Bangkok, Thailand
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp. 149-155.
OPEN ACCESS   1305 Views   942 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)


Despite a tremendous success in boosting students learn electrical analogies for science education, it remains a challenge to extend such strategy for formally constructing equations related to the Ohm’s law in order to solve electrical problems based on series and parallel circuits. Unlike most traditional works of teaching technique that focus mainly on the current, an alternative approach with highlighted voltage is served as a guidance to help students solve the problems and develop a better understanding of direct circuits. To this end, we present a design of teaching method so-called voltage tracking and division. We report results from a study in which we used a set of pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest to evaluate the change in 35 sophomore students, major in general science of education, as a result of their participation in the electricity and energy course that comprised a 4-hours intensive class and 1-month follow-up examination. Through the employment of our method, students showed significant gains from pretest to posttest as well as that on the delayed posttest compared to the pretest. These results suggested that voltage tracking and division method facilitated the development of students’ ability in solving electric circuit problems and also provided the persistence of such understanding. We envisage that our findings would evoke teaching tools that benefit from emphasizing voltage via the voltage tracking and division method to enhance the deepen understanding of students in solving circuit problems.


Kittiravechote, A. (2019). Promoting in solving electric circuit problems via voltage tracking and division. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(4), 149-155.


  • Aubusson, P., Treagust, D., and Harrison, A., (2009). Learning and teaching science with analogies and metaphors. In S.M. Ritchie (Ed.), The world of science education: Handbook of research in Australasia (pp. 199- 216). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  • Brown, S., and Salter, S., (2010). Analogies in science and science teaching. Advances in Physiology Education, 34, 167–169.
  • Cruz-Hastenreiter, R., (2015). Analogies in high school classes on quantum physics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 167, 38 – 43.
  • Dagher, Z. R., (1995). Review of studies on the effectiveness of instructional analogies in science education. Science Education, 79(3), 295-312.
  • Engelhardt, P. V., and Beichner, R. J., (2004). Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. American Journal of Physics, 72(1), 98-115.
  • Fortman, J. J., (1993). Pictorial analogies III: heat flow, thermodynamics, and entropy. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(2), 102.
  • Gaigher, E., (2014). Questions about answers: Probing teachers’ awareness and planned remediation of learners’ misconceptions about electric circuits. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(2), 176–187.
  • Goris, T. V., (2016). Common misunderstandings of electricity: Analysis of interview responses of electrical engineering technology students. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 6(1), 4-10.
  • Jonāne, L., (2015). Analogies in science education. Pedagogy, 119(3), 116–125.
  • Kipnis, N., (2009). A law of physics in the classroom: The case of Ohm’s law. Science & Education, 18(3), 349-382.
  • Küçüközer, H., and Kocakülah, S., (2008). Effect of simple electric circuits teaching on conceptual change in grade 9 physics course. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 5(1), 59-74.
  • Millar, R., and Beh, K. L., (1993). Students’ understanding of voltage in simple parallel electric circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 15(4), 351-361.
  • Oh, K. W., Lee, K., Ahna, B., and Furl, E. P., (2012). Design of pressure-driven microfluidic networks using electric circuit analogy. Lab on a Chip, 12(3), 515-545.
  • Parappilly, M., Hassam, C., and Woodman, R. J., (2018). Race to improve student understanding of uncertainty: Using LEGO race cars in the physics lab. American Journal of Physics, 1, 68-76.
  • Rosenthal, A. S., and Henderson, C., (2006). Teaching about circuits at the introductory level: An emphasis on potential difference. American Journal of Physics, 74(4), 324-328.
  • Sengupta, P., and Wilensky, U., (2016). Understanding electric current using agent-based models: Connecting the micro-level with flow rate. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, 216-227.
  • Smith, D. P., and Kampen, P. V., (2011). Teaching electric circuits with multiple batteries: A qualitative approach. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 7(1), 020115-1-10.
  • Stocklmayer, S. M., and Treagust, D. F., (1996). Images of electricity: how do novices and experts model electric current?. International Journal of Science Education, 18(2), 163-178.
  • Treagust, D. F., Harrison, A. G., and Venville, G. J., (1998). Teaching science effectively with analogies: An approach for preservice and inservice teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(2), 85-101.
  • Ugur, G., Dilber, R., Senpolat, Y., and Duzgun, B., (2012). The effects of analogy on students' understanding of direct current circuits and attitudes towards physics lessons. European Journal of Educational Research, 1(3), 211-223.
  • Weller, C. M., (1970). The role of analogy in teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7(2), 113-119.
  • Young, H. D., Adams, P. W., and Chastain, R. J., (2016). Collage Physics (pp. 639-661). Great Britain: Pearson.