Journal of the Korean Physical Society, Vol. 44, No. 6, June 2004, pp. 1341∼1348
The Effects of Using the Electric Circuit Model in Science Education
to Facilitate Learning Electricity-Related Concepts
Kyunghee Choi∗ and Hyunsook Chang
Department of Science Education, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 120-750
(Received 18 November 2003, in final form 19 April 2004)
Among many science topics taught in the middle school, students find electricity-related concepts
most difficult to understand. Many studies show that there is a significant gap between the level
of students’ performance in the tests and the amount of content on the subject. This implies
that students have difficulty understanding abstract concepts and that a revision of the current
teaching strategies is needed in order to facilitate students’ learning and understanding of the
subject matter. This study, therefore, purported to examine students’ ability to comprehend the
content on electricity when a electric circuit model was applied and incorporated in teaching. Sixty
eighth-graders were sampled from a middle school in Seoul, and they were divided into three groups:
two experimental groups and one control group. In experimental group I, the electric circuit model
developed for this study was used. In experimental group II, the electric circuit model, presented
with a flowing-water analogy in the science textbook, was used. In the control group, only the
flowing-water analogy in the textbook was used as teaching strategy. The results of this study show
that there were statistically significant differences between the two experimental groups and the
control group, which implies that the use of the electric circuit model as a concrete and tangible
teaching aid was more effective in explaining electricity-related concepts than use of the flowingwater analogy alone. There was, however, no significant difference between the first experimental
group, which used the electric circuit model alone, and the second experimental group, which used
the model with the flowing-water analogy. The study shows that utilizing more concrete visual
aids and props such as the model, are effective in facilitating the learning process and in increasing
comprehension of the material.
PACS numbers: 01.40.Gm
Keywords: Physics education, Model, Analogy, Electricity-related concepts
I. INTRODUCTION
Electricity-related concepts, such as electric current,
voltage and resistance, are important concepts taught
in the elementary, middle, and high schools. However,
several studies point out that many students in science
classes are having difficulties in understanding these concepts, and often develop misconceptions on these topics
[1–3]. Not being able to clearly understand the topic contributes to limited performance on tests and negatively
affects students in learning further academic concepts.
Even the university students who took advanced physics
classes in high school had misconceptions about the basic concepts on topics related to electricity, as did the
middle-school students [4]. Such problem will continue
to persist if the traditional teaching methods are continuously adopted in the classroom [5].
There are many reasons these misconceptions happen
∗ E-mail:
khchoi@ewha.ac.kr;
Tel: +82-2-3277-2615; Fax: +82-2-3277-2684
in class teaching. One of the main reasons may be that
for abstract concepts such as electricity, helpful teaching
aids, which assist students to clearly visualize the phenomenon and grasp the concept, need to be presented
along the theory. For example, when teaching electricity,
not being able to observe the actual flow of the electric
charge is one of the main reasons for misconceptions. It
is difficult for the students to imagine the electric flow by
merely watching a light bulb turning on when connected
to a circuit. Therefore, abstract concepts like the electric
current, voltage, and resistance need appropriate use of
both verbal analogies and physical models that will help
students to visualize and comprehend the concept.
Recently, using models has become one of the most
effective methods for helping students to understand scientific concepts [6–9]. A model is a simplified and formulated structure that explains an abstract property of
a phenomenon or object in a convincing way. Also, a
model is a structured means of communicating knowledge in different forms, including elaborative diagrams,
symbols, tables, and figures and tangible aids, in order
to best describe what needs to be communicated [10].
-1341-
-1342-
Journal of the Korean Physical Society, Vol. 44, No. 6, June 2004
In science textbooks, abstract concepts, principles, or
theories are often explained with the use of models or
analogies. The model of the atom that imitates the solar
system and the DNA structure by Watson and Crick are
good examples of models frequently used in the class.
Hence, the purpose of this study was to examine if there
is any difference in learning and comprehension when a
developed electric circuit model was used, as opposed to
using pictures of flowing-water when teaching electricityrelated concepts in science class.
II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1. Use of Analogy
When introducing a new concept, we often start explaining by using things that are already familiar with.
When we make inferences of what we already know and
treat it as an example, we call it an “analogy” [11–13].
Using analogy effectively helps both teachers and learners to communicate and understand abstract science concepts [14]. Since analogies used in science classes transform the abstract concepts into more concrete ones, they
are especially helpful for the students with weak comprehension skills [15–17].
Bruner [18] stated that as long as the material is described in an intellectually appropriate way, children at
any stage of cognitive development could learn the material. This means children in a concrete operational
stage of the development, when an abstract concept is
taught with appropriate visual analogies and aids, can
understand the material. Therefore, meeting the student’s level of knowledge and structuring the learning
content based on student’s cognitive level is important
task for teachers.
Analogy is often referred to as a base domain or a
source domain, and according to Gentner and Gentner
[11], an analogy should include the relational aspects of
target concepts but not necessarily the properties of each
concept. When the structure of an atom, for example,
is compared to that of the solar system, their relational
properties, such as the planets and the sun pulling each
other, planets rotating around the sun, and planets being far less massive than the sun, should be represented
by the electrons and a nucleus as analogs. However, the
elementary properties of the sun, such as its temperature, mass, and size, do not need to be shown in the
atomic structure. In another instance, a description of
the electric circuit often uses a water circulation analogy;
the water pipe represents the electric wire; the pump or
reservoir represents the battery; the narrow part of the
pump represents the resistance; and lastly, the water flow
represents the electric current. This analogy represents
inter-relational concepts but not necessary the properties
of water, such as its density, purity, or temperature.
In cognitive psychology, analogs to facilitate analogical reasoning should accompany surface similarity and
systematicity. Surface similarity means that an analogy
should be presented with the concrete object that best
represents the target concept. If there is much similarity between the analog and the target concept, then one
can use information derived from the analogy in the process of comprehending the target concept. Systematicity
of an analog, on the other hand, means that an analog
should effectively represent the physical structure of the
target concept [19,20].
Gentner and Landers [21] stated that in order to
improve students’ reasoning abilities, surface similarity
plays an important role. On the other hand, Zook [22]
stated that using analogies with high surface similarities
helps students to improve analogy recognition but contributes to limited expansion of knowledge. Holyoak and
Koh [23] added that structural similarity should be more
emphasized than surface similarity to facilitate spontaneous transfer of the main concept.
The desired concept learning almost always lies in the
systematic process similarities. However, some students
can map the surface analogy instead of the systematic
process analogy, or the invalid rather than the valid attributes [24]. Therefore, there should be guidance for
students in mapping systematic relationships [22,25].
Many researchers reported that the use of pictures and
models with analogies is efficient in understanding abstract concepts [3, 26, 27] because verbal analogy alone
is insufficient for students to understand the concept.
However, when presented both verbally and visually using aids or props, the learning process is more efficient,
yielding long-term memory of the concept [27]. Also,
Duit [17] reported that multiple analogies could be more
helpful because analogies are helpful in learning specific
parts of the target domain.
Korean science textbooks use many analogies to explain abstract concepts; however, there is a lack caution
or appropriateness in using these analogies. For example,
when using the flowing-water analogy for the electricity,
the elements of electricity are not correctly mapped in regards to the respective parts in the analogy. Moreover,
there is no explanation regarding the gap between the
actual concept of electricity and the simplified flowing
water image as an analogy.
2. Models and Teaching/Learning
The terminology “model” can be interpreted and applied in various ways. A model usually consists of a
structural mapping to represent a certain domain, and
in this aspect, the use of the flowing-water analogy to explain an electric circuit can be called the flowing water
model [17].
A model is one of the ways to represent objects, events,
or theories. Generally speaking, making a model means
transforming certain aspects of an analogy into a physical structure; therefore, it may only partially describe,
The Effects of Using the Electric Circuit Model in Science Education· · · – Kyunghee Choi and Hyunsook Chang
or lack information on, the target concept. However, developing a model is one of the major scientific gains and
has played a significant role in learning and exploring
various concepts in science. In addition, a model allows
abstract concepts to be visualized and further facilitates
student’s understanding [13].
According to Harrison [28], the school modeling spectrum includes both implicit and explicit models. The
implicit iconic symbols used in mathematics and science
(e.g., y = x2 , H2 O) are models because they represent
functions, variables, particles, and processes. At the explicit level, science often uses concept-building analogical models, such as scale models, pedagogical analogical
models, maps and diagrams, mathematical and theoretical models, and simulations, to represent objects, ideas,
and processes.
Black [29] classifies conceptual models into four major types of sources from which they are derived. They
are scale, analogy, mathematical, and theoretical models. Firstly, scale models are mathematically enlarged
or reduced for a better understanding of a real object.
Small bugs enlarged to the size of a dog, a big building
reduced to a smaller size that can be placed on a table,
a globe, or enlarged models of the human body for a
closer look of each part, etc. are examples of scale models. These models attempt to imitate the materials used
to make the target object and the external appearance
of the target object.
Second, analogy models refer to ones that are simplified in order to emphasize certain attributes in the target
concept. Analogical models always “break down” the attributes into shared and unshared attributes, where the
unshared attributes are not transformed into the model
[28]. For example, a ball and stick model showing the
structure of a chemical compound is made from plastic
spheres and straws; the flowing-water model explaining
electric circuits is constructed from the organizations and
operation of the domestic water supply; and a cardiovascular model using blue and red plastic lines represents
veins and arteries. The electric circuit model used in
this study is also an example of an analogy model.
Third, a mathematical model is written in an algebraic
expression. For instance, a mathematical model of an
ideal gas is obtained by ascribing symbols (T , V , and
P ) to the properties of a gas (temperature of ideal gas,
volume, and pressure) and representing their relationship
within a mathematical equation such as P V = nRT .
The fourth type is a theoretical model. The origin of a
theoretical model is from another area of inquiry where
it was already being used. Charles Darwin, for example,
used a “rough-and-ready” model for the mortality of domestic livestock as the source for the model of “natural
selection”.
There are also other models, such as solid and exact
models. The former refers to ones created for practicality
by representing the object in solid form, emphasizing
certain characteristics of the object. The latter refers to
models that are made exactly the same, size-wise and
-1343-
material-wise, in order to represent something valuable
[30].
Models are one of the most useful teaching tools that
can be used in classes when abstract concepts are being
taught. Using visual materials, including pictures, drawings, graphs, videos or films, real objects, animations,
computer simulations, remote control experiments, and
models, in class promotes efficiency of learning and enhances students’ problem-solving skills. These are convincing reasons for teachers to utilize these tools in teaching [30–34].
At times, however, certain misunderstandings may be
derived from the use of a model since there may be disparities between the model itself and what the model
purports to represent. Therefore, it is important that
students be informed that the models are only a simplified form of the concept and that there may be a gap between the actual object and the simplified one in terms
of size and content. If the model has been oversimplified from the original concept, then the students may
experience difficulty in grasping the concept and acquire
misconception.
Constructivists advise teachers to provide their students enough time to explore and share opinions on the
applicability and limitations of the model. Even if the
conceptual model is approved by scientists, teachers need
to be aware of where the model came from, what it is
purported to communicate, and what its limitations are
for applicability [17, 24, 35]. Because it is impossible to
develop exactly a perfect model to represent the target
concept, the students have to learn to recognize the gap
between the two, and at the same time, teachers should
inform them of the gap.
III. METHOD
1. Subject
Sixty eighth-grade students in Seoul, South Korea,
participated in the study. The subjects were divided
into three groups: one control group and two experimental groups. In experimental group I, the electric circuit model developed for this study was used in teaching
concepts about electricity. In experimental group II, the
electric circuit model was used along with the flowingwater analogy from the science textbook. For effectively
teaching electricity using the model, the FAR guide of
Treagust et al.[14] was used. In the control group, only
the flowing-water analogy in the textbook was used in
describing electricity.
2. Procedure
Pre and post-tests were given to all three groups. The
pre-test was administered one week before the intervention in order to assess students’ knowledge of the content.
-1344-
Journal of the Korean Physical Society, Vol. 44, No. 6, June 2004
The electricity chapter was taught for five days as an intervention. After the intervention, a post-test was given
in order to determine the effectiveness of interventions in
all three groups, which used different strategies utilizing
the model and analogy. Lesson plans in the intervention dealt with themes and topics as following using the
analogies and models shown in Table 1.
3. Questionnaire
A questionnaire was developed for this study in order
to appropriately assess the students’ previous knowledge
on electricity and its related concept (See Appendix).
The developed questionnaire was validated and reviewed
by professionals in science education. The questionnaire
was composed of eleven questions: six multiple-choices
questions on the concepts of electric currents, voltage,
and resistance, two multiple-choice questions on the relationships between these concepts, and three short-answer
question about the concepts. Some of the items in the
questionnaire were controlled when presented as a pretest or post-test in order to minimized the presentation
effect since the questionnaires were presented as the pretest. The items were re-ordered in the post-test, and the
possible answers for each of the multiple-choice questions
were shuffled. Each question was worth 1 point.
4. Electric Circuit Model
The electric circuit model was developed based on the
moving-crowd analogy used in Gentner and Gentner’s
[11] study. The analogy of a moving crowd used the image of people moving around in a tunnel with narrow
gates. This analogy is effective for understanding the
concepts of not only voltage and current but also resistance. In this analogy, the resistance is symbolized by
the narrow gates; the resistance decreases if the gates are
connected in parallel, which yields a widened gate.
However, one should be concerned in using this analogy when explaining 2, 3 or more resistors that come in a
series. A crowd moving through a passage or tunnel consisting of a series of gates will only model the additive
restricting effect of extra series resistors, provided the
people have to open and close the gate each time they
pass through a gate. If the gates are just narrowings,
instead of doors that need to be opened or closed, then
the people could pass through at the rate determined by
the narrowest gate, not at the rate determined by the
sum of the gates’ effects.
With this regard, a model was developed for this study
based on Gentner and Gentner’s moving-crowd analogy
[11]. The model was based on electrons running in one
direction in a wire as people move around in the tunnel. The model was designed with a stripe of roundshaped polystyrene foam attached to a wooden board.
Fig. 1. Diagram of the electric circuit model : All the electrons are attached to the soft polystyrene foam track which
is attached to a thin wooden board.
Fig. 2. Diagram of the narrow door and electrons going
through the narrow door: As the motive force increases, electrons flow faster. This means that a greater voltage in a circuit causes an increased electric current. Using the speed control handle attached on the other side of the wooden board,
it is possible to show that the electrons lose speed when the
voltage is lowered. The narrower and the longer the door is,
the less able electrons are to go through the door. This means
that increased resistance in the circuit causes the electric current to decrease.
The polystyrene foam circulated at different speeds by
using handle attached on the other side of the wooden
board. The runners, made of polystyrene foam balls
and painted faces, were placed on top of the polystyrene
foam. In the study, the runners represented the electrons, the line of runners running on a track represented
the current, and the motivation of runners to run and
reach the goal represented voltage. On one portion of
the polystyrene foam, battery model and narrow doors
are added to retrain the movement of runners, which represented resistance <Fig. 1, 2, Table 2>. The electric
circuit model helped students get a better understanding
of the abstract concepts relating to electricity through
visualized aid.
IV. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to determine students’
level of understanding by comparing the use of the developed model and the picture of flowing water in teaching
electricity in the science class. In the pre-test results,
the average score of the control group was 4.50, that of
experimental group I was 5.05, and that of experimental group II was 5.65. However, there was no significant
The Effects of Using the Electric Circuit Model in Science Education· · · – Kyunghee Choi and Hyunsook Chang
-1345-
Table 1. Comparison of analogies applied to each group.
Group Concept
Electric wire
Electric
current
Control group
Path of water flow
Water flowing
rate
Voltage
Water pressure
Experimental group I
Race course
Passage rate of runners
Goal-directed motivation for
runners to keep them running
Narrowness of
pipe
Picture
Resistor
Form of analog
Narrowness of door
Picture, model
Experimental group II
Path of water flow, race course
Water flowing rate,
passage rate of runners
Pressure of water,
goal-directed motivation for
runners to keep them running
Narrowness of pipe,
narrowness of door
Picture, model
Table 2. Structure-mapping of the electric circuit model.
Concept
Electrons are flowing
through the electric wire.
Voltage
Structure-Mapping
Runners are flowing running through the track.
Goal-directed motivation for runners to keep them running. (The term voltage is
mentioned only in middle-school science textbooks and explanations on voltage are
given at the high-school level. Because this research was done on middle-school
students, voltage was not explained based on potential difference in detail; however,
in high-school science, it is necessary to relate voltage with the concept of electrical potential.)
The narrow door interrupting the runners
Resistance
Table 3. ANOVA results on Post-test.
Test
Post
∗∗∗
Group
Control
Experiment I
Experiment II
N
20
20
20
Mean
8.00
9.20
10.05
SD
2.03
1.06
0.94
F-value
10.41∗∗∗
p < .001
difference in the groups when analyzed using ANOVA.
The analyses of post-test results in the three groups
are shown in Tables 3 and 4. The average post-test
score in the control group was 8.00, which was the lowest among the three groups. The average in experimental group I was 9.20 and that in experimental group
II was 10.05. The ANOVA analysis showed that there
was a statistically significant difference among the three
groups (p<.001). With multiple comparisons, the control group and experimental group I were significantly
different (p=.01), as were the control group and the
experimental group II (p<.001). There was, however,
no significant difference between the two experimental
groups.
The above results show that the students in the two
experimental groups, who were taught using the electric circuit model, obtained better understanding of
electricity-related concepts than those in the control
group, which used the flowing-water analogy alone. However, there was no significant difference between the two
experimental groups: those who were given the electric
circuit model and those who were given both the electric circuit model and the flowing-water analogy. This
implies that the electric circuit model served as a sufficient aid for students to understand electricity-related
concepts and that the flowing-water analogy in the Korean textbooks does not have a significant effect in facilitating learning.
The study further analyzed each item in the post-test
in order to examine which items were significantly different among the three groups in terms of comprehending the concepts. There was no significant difference
among the three groups on questions 1 and 6, which
assessed students’ level of knowledge on the concept of
voltage. Regarding question 6 on water flow, it is interesting that there was no significant difference among
the three groups. This implies that students in experimental group I were able to figure out the concept of
the flowing-water analogy without being exposed to the
concept in class. This further implies that they were able
to transfer the knowledge another concept, which means
they had a concrete understanding of the content.
Regarding question 10, which asked the students to
define voltage, students in the control group responded
by saying “pressure of electricity”. The Korean word
for voltage is jun − ab, which is derived from the Chinese jun meaning electricity and ab meaning pressure;
therefore, the students often separate the combined word
into two for the definition. However, the students in
-1346-
Journal of the Korean Physical Society, Vol. 44, No. 6, June 2004
Table 4. Multiple Comparison Results on Post-test.
Dependent variable
The score of
Post exam
∗∗
p = .01,
∗∗∗
Comparison
control - experiment I
control - experiment II
experiment I - experiment II
value of contrast
−1.20
−2.05
−0.85
df
1
1
1
t-value
−2.65∗∗
−4.541∗∗∗
−1.88
p < .001
the experimental group were able to provide appropriate answers in defining voltage by stating “motive power
for electrons to keep them flowing in the electric wire”
(pcontrol−experiment I , pcontrol−experiment II <.05).
Regarding questions 1, 6, and 10 which ask about
the voltage and the connection of batteries, students
in the experimental groups who were taught with
the electric circuit model responded more appropriately than those who were taught using the flowingwater analogy. Regarding question 4 on the electric
current, there were no significant differences among
the three groups.
However, regarding question 3
(pcontrol−experiment I , pcontrol−experiment II <.05) and
question 9 (pcontrol−experiment I , pcontrol−experiment II ,
pexperiment I−experiment II <.05), the students in the
control group responded that electric current was the
flow of electricity. On the contrary, most of the students
in the experimental group responded that electric current was the flow of ‘electrons’.
Regarding questions 3 and 9 on electricity flow, the
students in the experimental groups scored higher than
students in the the control group (pcontrol−experiment I ,
pcontrol−experiment II <.05), which indicates that the
electric circuit model was more effective in explaining
electricity flow than the flowing-water analogy. Among
the three groups, the students in the experimental group
which used both the model and the analogy scored the
highest in explaining the electricity flow. This implies
that when provided with both the model and the analogy, students obtained a clearer understanding of the
concept.
Regarding questions 2, 5, and 11 on resistance, there
was no significant difference among the groups for questions 2 and 11; however, there was a significant difference
for question 5 where scores of students in experimental
group I and experimental group II were higher than the
scores of students in the control group (p<.05). For questions 5, the students in all three groups did not learn the
mathematical formula of R ∝ (l/A); however, in the experimental groups, the concept was explained by showing
the width of door against the cross-section of certain material, such as glass, coopers and iron. The length of the
door represented the length of the material.
Similarly, the students in the experimental groups
scored higher for questions 7 and 8 on the relationship among voltage, electric current, and resistance
(pcontrol−experiment I , pcontrol−experiment II <.05). This
implies that students who were taught with the electric
circuit model had a better understanding of the relationship between voltage, electric current, and resistance
than those who were taught with the flowing-water analogy.
The results of this study yield the following conclusions: It is clear that the electric circuit model was more
effective in helping the students comprehend and understand electricity-related concepts than the flowing-water
analogy which is frequently used in Korean science textbook. Therefore, it is suggested that more appropriate
analogies need to be developed and applied appropriately
to help students comprehend abstract phenomena. It is
the teacher’s aim to best facilitate a student’s learning
experience and to motivate his or her interest by using
various visual aids and props. Because many science concepts are difficult to understand when verbally explained,
the use of various teaching aids to provide concrete images and to visualize the concept is important teaching
strategy.
APPENDIX A
Post-test Questionnaire
(
) year
(
) class
name (
)
“The following question indicates how much
you learned about electricity during the science
classes. These questions have nothing to do with
your grade. Please answer the question as best
as you can. Thank you for your help.”
1. What is the best way in Fig. 3. to connect the batteries in order to make the electric current flow strongly?
Fig. 3. Battery connections.
(1) (A)
(2) (B)
(3) (C)
(4) (D)
(5) (E)
The Effects of Using the Electric Circuit Model in Science Education· · · – Kyunghee Choi and Hyunsook Chang
2. As you see on Fig. 4, iron beads are rolled down
a slope which has many sticks on it. As the number
of sticks is increased, the more time it will take for the
iron beads to reach the bottom because they will hit the
sticks. What do the sticks represent?
-1347-
5. Which of the following shows the smallest amount
of electrical resistance?
Table 5. Various materials.
A
B
C
D
E
Material
Copper Copper Iron Glass Glass
Length (m)
10
5
10
5
10
2
Dimension (cm )
2
4
2
3
1
(1)A
(2) B
(3) C
(4) D
(5) E
6. When the electric current is represented by flowing
water as shown in Fig. 7, which one of the following is
mapped onto the voltage?
Fig. 4. A slope which has many sticks on it.
(1) voltage
(2) resistance
(3) electric current
(4) electric wire
(5) electricity
3. As you can see on Fig. 5, if you make a circuit
and close the switch, electric current flows and turns the
light bulb on. Current is the flow of (
).
Fig. 7. Bucket.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
the
the
the
the
the
size of the bucket
number of water molecules
depth of the water in the bucket
direction of water flow
size of the opening at the bottom of the bucket
Fig. 5. Electric circuit.
(1) the material inside the battery
(2) nuclei
(3) electric wire (4) electricity (5) electrons
4. In Fig. 6. the electric current flowing through point
‘a’ is 3 A (ampere) and through ‘b’ is 2 A. Then what is
the electric current flowing through point ‘c’ ?
7. Which of the flowing graphs correctly shows the
relationship between electric current and voltage among
Fig. 8?
Fig. 8. Graphs.
(1) (A)
Fig. 6. Electric circuit.
(1) 1 A
(2) 2 A
(3) 3 A
(4) 5 A
(5) 8 A
(2) (B)
(3) (C)
(4) (D)
(5) (E)
8. Which of the following correctly explains the relationships among electric current, voltage, and resistance?
(1) Electric current is increased when resistance is reduced.
(2) Voltage decreases when electric current is increased.
-1348-
Journal of the Korean Physical Society, Vol. 44, No. 6, June 2004
(3) Resistance is reduced when voltage is increased.
(4) Increase in resistance causes increase in the electric
current.
(5) Electric current, voltage, and resistance have no
relationship to each other.
9. Define electric current.
10. Define voltage.
11. Define resistance.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Driver, E. Guesne and A. Tiberghien, Children’s Ideas
in Science (Open University Press, Milton Keynes [Buckinghamshire], Philadelphia, 1985).
[2] Y. Kim and S. Park, Mulli Kyoyuk 8, 40 (1990).
[3] Y. Kim and S. Park, Mulli Kyoyuk 10, 39 (1992).
[4] J. Kwon and S. Ahn, Mulli Kyoyuk 7, 26 (1989).
[5] D. Kim, I. Park, E. Sung, D. Kook, I. Kim, Y. Son, S.
Ro and H. Kim, J. Korean Assoc. Res. Sci. Educ. 13,
100 (1993).
[6] R. Millar, School Science Review 77, 7 (1996).
[7] J. K. Gilbert, Australasian Science Education Research
Association (Adelaide, July, 1997).
[8] C. Boulter, in Exploring models and modelling in science
and technology education, edited by J. K. Gilbert (The
University of Reading, Reading, 1997), p. 180.
[9] E. Zimmermann, in Exploring models and modelling in
science and technology education, edited by J. K. Gilbert
(The University of Reading, Reading, 1997), p. 57.
[10] H. Cho, Misunderstanding of Science Concepts (Jhonpa
Kwahak Sa, Seoul, 1994).
[11] D. Gentner and D. R. Gentner, in Mental Models, edited
by D. Gentner and A.L. Stevens (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983), p. 99.
[12] Y. Kim, J. Korean Assoc. Res. Sci. Educ. 11, 1 (1991).
[13] J. K. Gilbert (eds.), Model and Modelling in Science
Education (Association for Science Education, Hatfield,
Herts, 1993).
[14] D. Treagust, A. Harrison and G. Venville, J. Sci. Teacher
Educ. 9, 85 (1998).
[15] D. L. Gabel and R. D. Sherwood, Sci. Educ. 64, 709
(1980).
[16] M. A. Shapiro, Information Systems Division of the International Communication Association (Honolulu, May,
1985).
[17] R. Duit, Sci. Educ. 75, 649 (1991).
[18] J. S. Bruner, The Process of Education (Vintage Books,
New York, 1960).
[19] D. Gentner and C. Toupin, Cognitive Sci. 10, 277 (1986).
[20] P. Thagard, J. Res. Sci. Teaching 29, 537 (1992).
[21] D. Gentner and R. Landers, International Conference on
System, Man and Cybernetics (Tuscon, AZ, 1985).
[22] K. Zook, Educ. Psychology Rev. 3, 41 (1991).
[23] K. J. Holyoak and K. Koh, Memory & Cognitian 15, 332
(1987).
[24] S. M. Glynn, in The psychology of learning science,
edited by S. Glynn, R. Yeany and B. Britton (Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ, 1991), p. 219.
[25] D. Gentner, Cognitive Sci. 7, 155 (1983).
[26] R. V. Cutis and C. M. Reigeluth, The effects of analogies on student motivation and performance in an eighthgrade science context. (Syracuse Univ., New York, 1983),
IDD & E working paper No. 9.
[27] T. Noh, Y. Choi and H. Kwon, J. Korean Assoc. Res.
Sci. Educ. 18, 83 (1998).
[28] A. Harrison, School Sci. And Math. 98, 420 (1998).
[29] M. Black, Models and Metaphors (Cornell University
Press, Ithaca, N.Y. 1962).
[30] Y. M. Kim and K. R. Ryu, J. Korean Phys Soc. 38, 777
(2001).
[31] J. S. Steven, Real objects and models (Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981).
[32] H. Lee, S. Park, K. Yuk and H. Lee J. Korean Phys Soc.
41, 638 (2002).
[33] E. Choi and J. Park, J. Korean Phys Soc. 42, 318 (2003).
[34] O. Jo and Y. M. Kim, J. Korean Phys Soc. 43, 183
(2003).
[35] D. Treagust, R. Duit, P. Joslin and I. Lindauer, International J. Sci. Educ. 14, 413 (1992).