Student ideas regarding entropy and the second law of thermodynamics in an introductory physics course

American Journal of Physics

Volumn 77, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 907-917

  Christensen, Warren M ^a   Meltzer, David E ^b   Ogilvie, C A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894465127     PISSN: 00029505     EISSN: 19432909     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1119/1.3167357     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. S. Kesidou and R. Duit, “Students’ conceptions of the second law of thermodynamics–An interpretive study,” J. Res. Sci. Teach. JRSTAR 30 (1), 85–106 (1993).10.1002/tea.3660300107
2. M. J. Cochran and P. R. L. Heron, “Development and assessment of research-based tutorials on heat engines and the second law of thermodynamics,” Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 74, 734–741 (2006).10.1119/1.2198889
3. M. E. Loverude, C. H. Kautz, and P. R. L. Heron, “Student understanding of the first law of thermodynamics: Relating work to the adiabatic compression of an ideal gas,” Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 70, 137–148 (2002).10.1119/1.1417532
4. D. E. Meltzer, “Investigation of students’ reasoning regarding heat, work, and the first law of thermodynamics in an introductory calculus-based general physics course,” Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 72, 1432–1446 (2004).10.1119/1.1789161
5. C. H. Kautz, P. R. L. Heron, M. E. Loverude, and L. C. McDermott, “Student understanding of the ideal gas law, Part I: A macroscopic perspective,” Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 73, 1055–1063 (2005).10.1119/1.2049286
6. C. H. Kautz, P. R. L. Heron, P. S. Shaffer, and L. C. McDermott, “Student understanding of the ideal gas law, Part II: A microscopic perspective,” Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 73, 1064–1071 (2005).10.1119/1.2060715
7. J. R. Thompson, B. R. Bucy, and D. B. Mountcastle, “Assessing student understanding of partial derivatives in thermodynamics,” Proceedings of the 2005 Physics Education Research Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, 2005, edited by Paula Heron, Laura McCullough, and Jeffrey Marx, J. R. Thompson, B. R. Bucy, and D. B. Mountcastle, [AIP Conf. Proc. APCPCS 818, 77–80 (2006)].10.1063/1.2177027
8. B. R. Bucy, J. R. Thompson, and D. B. Mountcastle, “What is entropy? Advanced undergraduate performance comparing ideal gas processes,” Proceedings of the 2005 Physics Education Research Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, 2005, edited by Paula Heron, Laura McCullough, and Jeffrey Marx [AIP Conf. Proc. APCPCS 818, 81–84 (2006)].10.1063/1.2177028
9. B. R. Bucy, J. R. Thompson, and D. B. Mountcastle, “Student (mis)application of partial differentiation to material properties,” Proceedings of the 2006 Physics Education Research Conference, Syracuse, NY, 2006, edited by Laura McCullough, Leon Hsu, and Paula Heron [AIP Conf. Proc. APCPCS 883, 157–160 (2007)].10.1063/1.2508716
10. D. B. Mountcastle, B. R. Bucy, and J. R. Thompson, “Student estimates of probability and uncertainty in advanced laboratory and statistical physics courses,” Proceedings of the 2007 Physics Education Research Conference, Greensboro, NC, 2007, edited by Leon Hsu, Charles Henderson, and Laura McCullough, D. B. Mountcastle, B. R. Bucy, and J. R. Thompson, [AIP Conf. Proc. APCPCS 951, 152–155 (2007)].10.1063/1.2820919
11. E. B. Pollock, J. R. Thompson, and D. B. Mountcastle, “Student understanding of the physics and mathematics of process variables in [formula omitted] diagrams,” Proceedings of the 2007 Physics Education Research Conference, Greensboro, NC, 2007, edited by Leon Hsu, Charles Henderson, and Laura McCullough, E. B. Pollock, J. R. Thompson, and D. B. Mountcastle, [AIP Conf. Proc. APCPCS 951, 168–171 (2007)].10.1063/1.2820924
12. D. E. Meltzer, “Student learning in upper-level thermal physics: Comparisons and contrasts with students in introductory courses,” Proceedings of the 2004 Physics Education Research Conference, Sacramento, CA, 2004, edited by Jeffrey Marx, Paula Heron, and Scott Franklin [AIP Conf. Proc. APCPCS 790, 31–34 (2005)].10.1063/1.2084694
13. D. E. Meltzer, “Investigation of student learning in thermodynamics and implications for instruction in chemistry and engineering,” Proceedings of the 2006 Physics Education Research Conference, Syracuse, NY, 2006, edited by Laura McCullough, Leon Hsu, and Paula Heron [AIP Conf. Proc. APCPCS 883, 38–41 (2007)]10.1063/1.2508686
14. D. E. Meltzer, “Investigating and addressing learning difficulties in thermodynamics,” Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2008 Annual Conference and Exposition, July 22–25, 2008, AC 2008–1505.
15. See, for comparison, R. Ben-Zvi, “Non-science oriented students and the second law of thermodynamics,” Int. J. Sci. Educ. ISEDEB 21 (12), 1251–1267 (1999). Ben-Zvi reported on student use of curricular materials she developed on energy and the quality of energy. In a tenth-grade course for non-science-oriented students, Ben-Zvi found that only one-quarter of the students recognized that in processes involving energy transfer, “each transformation is accompanied by some of it being converted to heat and thus the ability to perform work decreases.” 10.1080/095006999290057
16. M. F. Granville, “Student misconceptions in thermodynamics,” J. Chem. Educ. JCEDA8 62, 847–848 (1985).
17. P. L. Thomas and R. W. Schwenz, “College physical chemistry students’ conceptions of equilibrium and fundamental thermodynamics,” J. Res. Sci. Teach. JRSTAR 35, 1151–1160 (1998).10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199812)35:10<1151::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-K
18. M. Sözbilir and J. M. Bennett, “A study of Turkish chemistry undergraduates’ understandings of entropy,” J. Chem. Educ. JCEDA8 84 (7), 1204–1208 (2007).
19. See, for example, N. J. Tro, Chemistry, A Molecular Approach (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2008), pp. 783–785.
20. D. Giancoli, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 3rd ed. (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2000), p. 539
21. D. Halliday, R. Resnick, and J. Walker, Fundamentals of Physics, 6th ed. (Wiley, New York, NY, 2001), p. 500
22. R. D. Knight, Physics for Scientists and Engineers (Addison-Wesley, San Francisco, CA, 2004), p. 566
23. R. A. Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 4th ed. (Saunders, Philadelphia, PA, 1996), pp. 629–632.
24. These correspond to normalized gains of [formula omitted] and 0.04, respectively, using Hake's definition of normalized gain. See R. R. Hake, “Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 66, 64–74 (1998). Note, however, that correct (“not determinable”) responses regarding system entropy change on the general-context question actually declined after instruction [formula omitted].10.1119/1.18809
25. W. M. Christensen, “An investigation of student thinking regarding calorimetry, entropy, and the second law of thermodynamics,” Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University, 2007, UMI No. 3274888, Chap. 5.
26. We used a binomial-proportions test as described in J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, 4th ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965), pp. 185–187. On the postinstruction “entropy of the system” general-context question (considering only those students who made a directional choice), the “increases” response is more common than the “decreases” response [formula omitted]. Similarly, the postinstruction general-context response that the entropy of the surroundings increases is more popular than the response that the entropy of the surroundings decreases [formula omitted]; a similar preference is expressed on the concrete-context question for the entropy of the air in the room (increases preferred over decreases, [formula omitted]).
27. Other studies have explored the role of context-dependence of students’ responses, mostly in the form of different problem representations. See D. E. Meltzer, “Relation between students’ problem-solving performance and representational format,” Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 73, 463–478 (2005), and references therein.10.1119/1.1862636
28. L. C. McDermott, “Bridging the gap between teaching and learning: The role of research,” The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, AIP Conference Proceedings 399, College Park, Maryland, August 1996 [AIP Conference Processings 399], edited by E. F. Redish and J. S. Rigden (AIP, Woodbury, New York, 1997), pp. 139–165.
29. Analogous results were found in a different context by D. E. Meltzer, “Analysis of shifts in students’ reasoning regarding electric field and potential concepts,” Proceedings of the 2006 Physics Education Research Conference, Syracuse, NY, 2006, edited by Laura McCullough, Leon Hsu, and Paula Heron [AIP Conf. Proc. APCPCS 883, 177–189 (2007)].10.1063/1.2508721
30. C. H. Crouch and E. Mazur, “Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results,” Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 69, 970–977 (2001)10.1119/1.1374249
31. D. E. Meltzer and K. Manivannan, “Transforming the lecture-hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture,” Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 70, 639–654 (2002)10.1119/1.1463739
32. N. W. Reay, L. Bao, P. Li, R. Warnakulasooriya, and G. Baugh, “Toward the effective use of voting machines in physics lectures,” Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 73, 554–558 (2005)10.1119/1.1862638
33. I. D. Beatty, W. J. Gerace, W. J. Leonard, and R. J. Dufresne, “Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching,” Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 74, 31–39 (2006).10.1119/1.2121753