- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Qualitative investigation of students’ cross-disciplinary understanding of energy concepts

Andrew Boudreaux*

Emily Borda

Brittany Mureno, Eric McKenzie, Alessandra Hughes, and Autumn Welker

Lauren Stredicke

Todd Haskell

  • *Contact author: boudrea@wwu.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010112 – Published 28 January, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/hwnw-m3cl

Abstract

Think-aloud interviews were used to investigate college students’ cross-disciplinary understanding of energy concepts. Interview subjects were enrolled in a set of four science content courses (physics, biology, geology, and chemistry) for preservice K-8 teachers. These courses, built around the common theme of the flow of energy and matter through interacting systems, use similar vocabulary, modeling tools, and pedagogy to teach energy concepts. The interview tasks were designed to probe how students apply energy concepts originally learned in the physics course in less familiar contexts in geology, biology, and chemistry. Transcripts were analyzed using a coding scheme based on conceptual resources. Thematic analysis was then conducted to identify common patterns in students’ cross-disciplinary reasoning, particularly with regard to potential energy. The constructs of disciplinary and situated productivity were used to guide the development of themes. We find that students engage in productive reasoning about energy across disciplines. Students activate ideas related to energy forms and the objects to which these forms are attached with relatively high frequency, and ideas related to physical indicators and mechanisms for energy transfers and transformations with relatively lower frequency. Students apply potential energy concepts across disciplines, but often struggle to identify the physical manifestations of potential energy changes in less familiar contexts. While this study was conducted in a set of courses for preservice teachers, the findings have broader implications for introductory physics courses that serve as prerequisites for other disciplinary coursework.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (62)

  1. National Research Council, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2012).
  2. NGSS Lead States, Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013), https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18290/next-generation-science-standards-for-states-by-states.
  3. Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering, edited by S. R. Singer, N. R. Nielsen, and H. A. Schweingruber (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2012).
  4. A. Eisenkraft, J. C. Nordine, R. F. Chen, D. Fortus, J. Krajcik, K. Neumann, and A. Scheff, Why focus on energy instruction?, in Teaching and Learning of Energy in K-12 Education, edited by R. F. Chen, A. Eisenkraft, D. Fortus, J. Krajcik, K. Neumann, J. C. Nordine, and A. Scheff (Springer International Publishing, New York, 2014), pp. 1–5.
  5. N. M. Becker and M. M. Cooper, College chemistry students’ understanding of potential energy in the context of atomic-molecular interactions, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 51, 789 (2014).
  6. M. L. Nagel and B. A. Lindsey, Student use of energy concepts from physics in chemistry courses, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 16, 67 (2015).
  7. B. A. Lindsey, M. L. Nagel, and B. N. Savani, Leveraging understanding of energy from physics to overcome unproductive intuitions in chemistry, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010120 (2019).
  8. E. Borda, T. Haskell, and A. Boudreaux, Cross-disciplinary learning: A framework for assessing application of concepts across STEM disciplines, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 52, 83 (2022).
  9. H. C. Sabo, L. M. Goodhew, and A. D. Robertson, University student conceptual resources for understanding energy, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010126 (2016).
  10. S. M. Barnett and S. J. Ceci, When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer, Psychol. Bull. 128, 612 (2002).
  11. D. L. Schwartz, J. D. Bransford, and D. Sears, Efficiency and innovation in transfer, in Transfer of Learning: Research and Perspectives, edited by J. P. Mestre (Information Age Publishing, USA, 2005).
  12. J. Shen, S. Sung, and D. Zhang, Toward an analytic framework of interdisciplinary reasoning and communication (IRC) processes in science, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 37, 2809 (2015).
  13. T. Haskell, E. Borda, and A. Boudreaux, Cross-disciplinary learning index: A quantitative measure of cross-disciplinary learning about energy, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010108 (2022).
  14. B. W. Dreyfus, E. F. Redish, and J. Watkins, Student views of macroscopic and microscopic energy in physics and biology, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 179 (2012).
  15. B. W. Dreyfus, B. D. Geller, V. Sawtelle, J. Svoboda, C. Turpen, and E. F. Redish, Students’ interdisciplinary reasoning about “high-energy bonds” and ATP, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 122 (2013).
  16. M. Loverude, Student conceptual understanding of energy, in Proceedings of the APS March Meeting Abstracts (American Physical Society, College Park, MD, 2005), p. N17.004.
  17. E. Brewe, Energy as a substancelike quantity that flows: Theoretical considerations and pedagogical consequences, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 020106 (2011).
  18. M. Johnson and G. Lakoff, Metaphors We Live By (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Chicago, 2003).
  19. T. G. Amin, Conceptual metaphor meets conceptual change, Hum. Dev. 52, 165 (2009).
  20. L. M. Goodhew and A. D. Robertson, Investigating the proposed affordances and limitations of the substance metaphor for energy, presented at PER Conf. 2014, Minneapolis, MN, 10.1119/perc.2014.pr.022.
  21. R. E. Scherr, H. G. Close, S. B. McKagan, and S. Vokos, Representing energy. I. Representing a substance ontology for energy, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020114 (2012).
  22. R. E. Scherr, H. G. Close, E. W. Close, and S. Vokos, Representing energy. II. Energy tracking representations, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020115 (2012).
  23. K. E. Gray, M. C. Wittmann, S. Vokos, and R. E. Scherr, Drawings of energy: Evidence of the next generation science standards model of energy in diagrams, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010129 (2019).
  24. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. L. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1963).
  25. R. Duit, Should energy be illustrated as something quasi-material?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 9, 139 (1987).
  26. J. M. Dauer, H. K. Miller, and C. W. (Andy) Anderson, Conservation of energy: An analytical tool for student accounts of carbon-transforming processes, in Teaching, and Learning of Energy in K-12 Education, edited by R. F. Chen, A. Eisenkraft, D. Fortus, J. Krajcik, K. Neumann, J. Nordine, and A. Scheff (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014), pp. 47–61.
  27. L. M. Hartley, J. Momsen, A. Maskiewicz, and C. D’Avanzo, Energy and matter: Differences in discourse in physical and biological sciences can be confusing for introductory biology students, BioScience 62, 488 (2012).
  28. B. A. Lindsey, P. R. L. Heron, and P. S. Shaffer, Student understanding of energy: Difficulties related to systems, Am. J. Phys. 80, 154 (2012).
  29. L. Seeley, S. Vokos, and E. Etkina, Examining physics teacher understanding of systems and the role it plays in supporting student energy reasoning, Am. J. Phys. 87, 510 (2019).
  30. J. Solomon, Teaching the conservation of energy, Phys. Educ. 20, 165 (1985).
  31. R. Duit, Teaching and learning the physics energy concept, in Teaching, and Learning of Energy in K-12 Education, edited by R. F. Chen, A. Eisenkraft, D. Fortus, J. Krajcik, K. Neumann, J. Nordine, and A. Scheff (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014), pp. 67–85.
  32. C. Kruger, Some primary teachers’ ideas about energy, Phys. Educ. 25, 86 (1990).
  33. A. R. Daane, S. B. McKagan, S. Vokos, and R. E. Scherr, Energy conservation in dissipative processes: Teacher expectations and strategies associated with imperceptible thermal energy, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010109 (2015).
  34. A. A. diSessa, Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognit. Instr. 10, 105 (1993).
  35. D. Hammer, Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions?, J. Learn. Sci. 5, 97 (1996).
  36. A. A. diSessa and B. L. Sherin, What changes in conceptual change?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 1155 (1998).
  37. W. H. Benedikt, J. F. Virginia, and C. W. Michael, Productive resources in students’ ideas about energy: An alternative analysis of Watts’ original interview transcripts, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 023101 (2013).
  38. B. W. Harrer, Identifying productive resources in secondary school students’ discourse about energy, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maine, 2013.
  39. L. M. Goodhew, A. D. Robertson, P. R. L. Heron, and R. E. Scherr, Examining the productiveness of student resources in a problem-solving interview, presented at PER Conf. 2018, Washington, DC, 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.Goodhew.
  40. J. F. Wagner, Transfer in pieces, Cognit. Instr. 24, 1 (2006).
  41. F. Goldberg, S. Robinson, E. Price, D. Harlow, J. Andrew, and M. McKean, Next Generation Physics and Everyday Thinking (Activate Learning, Greenwich, CT, 2016).
  42. D. A. Donovan, J. Rousseau, I. Salter, L. Atkins, A. Acevedo-Gutierrez, R. Kratz, C. C. Landel, V. Mullen, and P. Pape-Lindstrom, Life Science and Everyday Thinking (Activate Learning, Greenwich, CT, 2008).
  43. E. J. Borda, A. Boudreaux, B. Fackler-Adams, P. Frazey, S. Julin, G. Pennington, and J. Ogle, Adapting a student-centered chemistry curriculum to a large-enrollment context: Successes and challenges, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 46, 8 (2017).
  44. S. M. Debari, J. Bachmann, B. Dougan, B. Fackler-Adams, R. Kratz, S. Linneman, T. Plake, and B. Smith, Using “how people learn” as a blueprint for developing teaching strategies in an introductory geology course, in Proceedings of the AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts (American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 2008), p. ED41B-06.
  45. A. Acevedo-Gutierrez, E. Borda, S. DeBari, D. A. Donovan, and S. Linneman, A learning cycle approach to guided inquiry in a four-course interdisciplinary science series, https://cii.wwu.edu/showcase2015/smate/default.asp.
  46. T.-R. Sikorski and D. Hammer, Looking for coherence in science curriculum, Sci. Educ. 101, 929 (2017).
  47. J. E. Roseman, L. Stern, and M. Koppal, A method for analyzing the coherence of high school biology textbooks, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47, 47 (2010).
  48. W. H. Schmidt, Characterizing Pedagogical Flow: An Investigation of Mathematics and Science Teaching in Six Countries (Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2005).
  49. F. Goldberg, S. Robinson, and V. Otero, Physics and Everyday Thinking (It’s About Time: Herff Jones Education Division, Armonk, NY, 2005).
  50. J. D. Bransford and D. L. Schwartz, Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications, Rev. Res. Educ. 24, 61 (1999), https://www.jstor.org/stable/1167267.
  51. J. Shen, O. L. Liu, and S. Sung, Designing interdisciplinary assessments in sciences for college students: An example on osmosis, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 1773 (2014).
  52. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/hwnw-m3cl for semistructured interview protocols including probing questions.
  53. C. W. Bowen, Think-aloud methods in chemistry education: Understanding student thinking, J. Chem. Educ. 71, 184 (1994).
  54. J. Saldaña, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 3rd ed. (SAGE, Los Angeles, CA, 2016).
  55. A. J. Richards, D. C. Jones, and E. Etkina, How students combine resources to make conceptual breakthroughs, Res. Sci. Educ. 50, 1119 (2018).
  56. J. Corbin, J. Corbin, and A. Strauss, Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria, Z. Sociol. 19, 418 (1990).
  57. A. L. Strauss and J. M. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd ed. (Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA, 2008).
  58. R. Algozzine and D. R. Hancock, Doing Case Study Research: A Practical Guide for Beginning Researchers (Teachers College Press, New York, New York, 2006).
  59. R. K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed. (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2009).
  60. National Academies of Sciences, How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2018).
  61. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, edited by J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000).
  62. A. Colburn, Constructivism: Science education’s “grand unifying theory”, Clearing House 74, 9 (2015).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010112– Published 28 January, 2026
  • Received 8 February 2023
  • Revised 30 July 2025
  • Accepted 15 August 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation