Student understanding of the ideal gas law, Part II: A microscopic

perspective
Christian H. Kautz,a兲 Paula R. L. Heron, Peter S. Shaffer, and Lillian C. McDermott
Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195
共Received 6 April 2005; accepted 29 July 2005兲
Evidence from research indicates that many undergraduate science and engineering majors have
seriously flawed microscopic models for the pressure and temperature in an ideal gas. In the
investigation described in this paper, some common mistaken ideas about microscopic processes
were identified. Examples illustrate the use of this information in the design of instruction that
helped improve student understanding of the ideal gas law, especially its substance independence.
Some broader implications of this study for the teaching of thermal physics are noted. © 2005
American Association of Physics Teachers.
关DOI: 10.1119/1.2060715兴

I. INTRODUCTION vestigation with individual demonstration interviews.5 As

This paper is the second of two that report on an investi-
gation of student understanding of the ideal gas law 共PV
= nRT兲.1 The emphasis in the first is on the macroscopic
variables and their relationship to one another through the
ideal gas law.2 We found that many of the student difficulties
that we identified at the macroscopic level seem to be rooted
in incorrect, or incomplete, microscopic models. 共The use of
the term model to characterize some related ideas does not
mean that students have the robust, self-consistent concep-
tual structure that physicists associate with this term.兲 In this
paper, we describe some common student models, and dis-
cuss how the insights gained from this study have guided the
development and assessment of tutorials to improve student
learning.3
The research, which was conducted by the Physics Educa-
tion Group at the University of Washington 共UW兲, involved
more than 1000 students. The participants were mostly un-
dergraduate science and engineering majors enrolled in intro-
ductory algebra- or calculus-based physics courses at UW
and other universities and a sophomore-level thermal physics
course at UW. Most of these students had taken, or were
concurrently taking, introductory chemistry. We obtained ad-
ditional information from graduate students who were pursu-
ing a Ph.D. in physics at UW.
The ideal gas law and the kinetic theory of gases are cov-
ered in many introductory physics and chemistry courses
and, at a somewhat more advanced level, in thermal physics
courses. Often, relatively little time is spent on a macro-
scopic perspective. The emphasis is mostly on the micro-
scopic model. The underlying assumptions are often stated
explicitly and presented in detail. An expression for pressure
is derived in terms of the number of particles, their mass and
average speed, and the volume of the gas. Temperature is
identified with the average kinetic energy of the particles.
For most students, this instructional sequence is not the first
exposure to the microscopic view of a gas. They are usually
aware of the particulate nature of matter before they take an
undergraduate science course.
II. METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
The present study builds on related research in which we
examined the ability of students to apply the first law of
thermodynamics and the ideal gas law.2,4 We began the in-
these progressed, misinterpretations of microscopic pro-
cesses seemed to underlie many of the errors that the stu-
dents made. To verify this impression, we conducted addi-
tional interviews in which we asked students from the
thermal physics course to respond to tasks specifically de-
signed to elicit their ideas about microscopic processes in an
ideal gas. For example, students were asked to compare the
number of molecules in three hypothetical identical balloons,
each filled with a different ideal gas, but all with the same
volume and temperature. Fewer than half of the students re-
alized that the pressure in all three balloons must be the same
and, hence, the number of molecules must be equal. Most
assumed that the size, mass, and structure of the gas particles
required different values for the pressure or number of mol-
ecules.
The analysis of responses to the interview tasks yielded
information about the microscopic models that students com-
monly use to predict and explain the behavior of ideal gases.
We found that these models often are so seriously flawed that
they inhibit the development of a functional understanding of
important concepts in thermal physics, including operational
definitions of pressure and temperature, conservation of en-
ergy as expressed by the first law of thermodynamics, and
substance independence of the ideal gas law. These findings
laid the foundation for the development of written problems
that enabled us to explore in greater detail some of the dif-
ficulties that we had identified and also to estimate their
prevalence.
The problems were administered on course examinations
or on nongraded written quizzes. All involved qualitative
questions for which explanations of reasoning were required.
In presenting the data, we have combined the results from
multiple sections of the same course, rounded the numbers of
students, and given the percentages of correct and incorrect
responses to the nearest 5%. Our research methods and jus-
tification for this approach are discussed in greater detail in
Ref. 2.
III. PROBLEMS DESIGNED TO PROBE STUDENT
UNDERSTANDING
We designed three types of problems to probe student un-
derstanding of the ideal gas law from a microscopic perspec-
tive. Some involved several tasks. Unless otherwise noted,
they were administered after standard instruction, but before

1064 Am. J. Phys. 73 共11兲, November 2005 http://aapt.org/ajp © 2005 American Association of Physics Teachers 1064
any research-based instruction. Thus, they can also be con-
sidered as pretests for the type of instruction that we will
describe. For each problem we give a proper response and
note the prevalence of correct answers. A more detailed
analysis follows later.
A. Isobaric expansion or compression problems
In one set of problems, students were asked about micro-
scopic aspects of an isobaric process. In each case, a fixed
amount of an ideal gas undergoes a specified change in vol-
ume at constant pressure. Usually the students were asked to
compare the initial and final equilibrium states in order to
avoid the issue of whether the process could be considered
quasi-static. Students were sometimes first asked to sketch
the process in a PV diagram. Most drew correct diagrams.
1. Kinetic-energy task
The students were asked whether the average kinetic en-
ergy per molecule increases, decreases, or remains the same
as the result of an isobaric expansion. To answer correctly
the students could first recognize that the increase in volume
at constant pressure must correspond to an increase in tem-
perature. The average kinetic energy per molecule is propor-
tional to the temperature, which therefore also increases. Al-
ternatively they could realize that an expansion results in a
decrease in number density. Therefore, the average speed of
the gas particles must increase to maintain the same pressure.
Consequently, the average kinetic energy 共and hence tem-
perature兲 must increase.
About 70% of the introductory students 关N ⬃ 155兴 and
about 80% of the thermal physics students 关N ⬃ 40兴 recog-
nized that the average kinetic energy increases. Many gave
the right answers for a variety of incorrect reasons. On a
similar task involving a compression, about 55% of the in-
troductory students realized that the kinetic energy decreases
关N ⬃ 60兴.
2. Change-in-momentum and particle-flux tasks
Students were also asked whether the average change in
momentum of a single particle as the result of a collision
with a wall would be different after the isobaric expansion.
This question, which is admittedly difficult, was not asked
primarily to assess understanding, but rather to help the stu-
dents think in terms of a microscopic model in which gas
pressure can be expressed as the product of the average
change in momentum per collision of a single particle and
the particle flux incident on the wall.6 In the second task, the
students were asked whether the number of particles incident
on a container wall per unit time interval per unit area 共the
particle flux兲 would be greater than, less than, or equal to the
number before the expansion.7
To answer this question, students could recognize that in
the standard elementary microscopic treatment of an ideal
gas, elastic collisions are assumed.8 Therefore, the average
change in momentum of a particle in a single collision is
proportional to the average initial momentum of the particle,
which in turn is a 共monotonically increasing兲 function of the
temperature. In the process described, the average change in
momentum increases due to the increase in the temperature.
Because the product of the average change in momentum
and the particle flux remains constant in an isobaric process,
the particle flux must be less after the expansion.
1065 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 73, No. 11, November 2005
In the introductory course about 35% of the students gave
correct answers with correct explanations for the change-in-
momentum task and only 10% gave correct answers with
correct explanations for the particle-flux task 关N ⬃ 95兴. In the
thermal physics course the corresponding percentages were
65% and 20% 关N ⬃ 80兴. On the particle-flux task, a signifi-
cant number of students arrived at the correct answer through
incorrect reasoning. The particle-flux task also proved to be
difficult for graduate students. When a version was asked as
part of a basic physics question on a Ph.D. qualifying exami-
nation at UW, only 8 of 15 students gave a correct answer
and only 7 gave a complete explanation.
B. Rebounding-particle task
Results from the change-in-momentum task suggested dif-
ficulty with basic concepts in mechanics that are necessary
for developing a microscopic model of pressure in a gas.
This inference was supported by informal interactions with
students in the thermal physics course and by our earlier
interviews. To separate difficulties with mechanics from oth-
ers specific to the microscopic model of gases, we posed a
simple problem in which a moving ball is normally incident
on an immovable wall. The students were told that the ball’s
initial and final speeds are equal. They were asked to find its
change in momentum, ⌬pជ , during the collision in terms of
the mass, m, and initial velocity, vជ i, of the ball. The answer,
−2mvជ i, could be found algebraically or by drawing initial
and final momentum vectors.
We gave the problem to 200 students in the mechanics
portion of the UW calculus-based course within weeks of
tutorial instruction on the use of vectors in kinematics. About
35% gave a correct response. An additional 20% gave the
correct magnitude but the incorrect sign. We also gave this
problem to students studying thermal physics in the calculus-
based course at another university, where the tutorials on
mechanics had not been used. Only 15% 关N ⬃ 60兴 gave a
correct response. In the UW thermal physics course 关N
⬃ 105兴, the results were similar to those for the UW
calculus-based course. A detailed examination of these re-
sults revealed that the thermal physics students who had
worked through the tutorials when they had taken introduc-
tory mechanics at UW gave correct answers at about twice
the rate 共45%兲 as those who had taken this course elsewhere
共20%兲.
C. Two-tanks task
During the interviews, many students implied that the size
or mass of the molecules made a difference in the number
contained in the balloons. The two-tanks task was designed
to determine the prevalence of such ideas. Students were
asked to compare the number of molecules in two rigid gas-
filled containers of equal size and shape at the same tempera-
ture and pressure. One contains oxygen; the other, hydrogen
共see Fig. 1兲. 共Sometimes, two other gases were used.兲 Stu-
dents were told to treat the gases as ideal. Because both
samples have the same pressure, volume, and temperature,
the number of moles 共and molecules兲 must be equal.
This task was given after standard instruction on the ideal
gas law in several courses.9 Only about half of the introduc-
tory students 关N ⬎ 500兴 realized that the number of mol-
ecules would be equal. In the thermal physics course, about
75% 关N ⬃ 35兴 gave correct answers.
Kautz et al. 1065

Fig. 1. The two-tanks task. Students were shown two identical rigid con-
tainers, one containing oxygen, the other hydrogen. They were told that the
temperatures and pressures are the same in both and asked to compare the
number of molecules in the two tanks.
IV. ANALYSIS OF INCORRECT RESPONSES
Student performance on the problems described above
suggested that the development of a correct microscopic
model for an ideal gas is not a typical outcome of standard
introductory and sophomore courses. The analysis of student
responses revealed serious errors in the interpretation at a
microscopic level of the variables in the ideal gas law. Only
the most common difficulties are discussed. In this section,
pressure, temperature, and n 共number of moles兲 are used as
headings to organize specific difficulties. The categories are
not mutually exclusive. For example, some difficulties with
pressure and temperature are due to difficulties with the av-
erage kinetic energy of particles in an ideal gas.
A. Analysis of incorrect responses related to pressure
Student responses to tasks designed to probe their ideas
about pressure indicated several specific difficulties. Below
are some examples.
Using incorrect (or incomplete) microscopic models of
pressure. On the isobaric-expansion problem, about 25% of
the introductory students who correctly predicted an increase
in the average kinetic energy of the gas particles went on to
state that the average change in momentum would be the
same before and after the expansion. 共A similar fraction of
those who gave incorrect answers about the average kinetic
energy answered in this way.兲 Almost all of these students
supported their answers by referring to the constant pressure.
By associating the pressure directly with the average mo-
mentum transfer, they failed to consider the incident flux as a
factor that affects pressure. The following response illus-
trates this difficulty: “The momentum transfer for each col-
lision remains the same. Because the number of molecules,
as well as the pressure, does not change, neither should the
momentum transfer of each collision.” These students recog-
nized that the gas pressure is related to the change in mo-
mentum of the particles and to the number of particles in the
sample, but lacked a detailed understanding of that relation-
ship. Similar answers were given by about 10% of the ther-
mal physics students.
About 25% of the students in the introductory course and
about 40% in the thermal physics course answered that the
particle flux would be the same before and after the isobaric
expansion. More than half of these students supported their
answer by referring to the constant pressure. They apparently
did not recognize that the incident particle flux alone does
not determine the pressure. One student wrote that “关Particle
flux兴 remains the same, because a constant pressure means
the number of molecules colliding with the walls per unit
area remains the same.” Both types of answers suggest that
at least half of the students in the introductory courses had
not been successful in building a qualitative microscopic
1066 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 73, No. 11, November 2005
model of gas pressure. Other students seemed to have such
basic difficulties with momentum and change in momentum
that they could not have developed a correct model.
Failing to treat change in momentum as a vector quantity.
As the following response suggests, some students did not
treat the momentum of a particle as a vector on the change-
in-momentum task.10 They were unaware that the change in
momentum of a particle during a single collision cannot be
zero. “关Change in momentum兴 remains the same. Assuming
that all collisions are perfectly elastic as in an ideal gas, the
change in momentum is zero.”
This difficulty was even more prevalent on the
rebounding-particle task, which had been designed to probe
understanding of momentum in a collision of a ball with a
wall. About 30% of the introductory students and 25% in the
thermal physics course stated that the change in momentum
is zero. Most added the initial and final momenta 共instead of
subtracting the former from the latter兲 or subtracted the mag-
nitudes without regard to sign or direction. Some drew vec-
tors representing the initial and final momenta, but still con-
cluded that the change in momentum would be zero. A
further 30% of the introductory students and 20% of the
thermal physics students were unable to arrive at an answer
in numerical or diagrammatical terms. Instead, they gave a
verbal description of the momentum of the ball before and
after the collision, often including statements such as: “the
momentum does not change. 关It兴 is simply directed in the
opposite direction,” or “it has the same momentum, just the
other way.” They seemed unaware that change in momentum
is a well-defined physical quantity that can be expressed
quantitatively and can yield a nonzero value.
Misapplying conservation of momentum. About 15% of
the students in the introductory course supported their state-
ments that the momentum of the ball or particle did not
change by referring to the principle of conservation of mo-
mentum: “the momentum does not change 共except in oppo-
site direction兲 because momentum is conserved.” Frequently,
students seemed not to distinguish between energy and mo-
mentum. For example, a student in the thermal physics
course wrote that “momentum will be the same because no
energy was lost.” A student in the introductory course stated
“mv = −mv, the momentum doesn’t change at all; the colli-
sion is completely elastic.”
Misinterpreting particle flux. There was difficulty with the
interpretation of “the number of particles incident on a wall
per time interval per unit area.” Some students who 共cor-
rectly兲 stated that the particle flux decreases in the isobaric
expansion did so simply because of the increase in volume
共or, frequently, the surface area兲 of the container. They
treated the particle flux as a type of density that is indepen-
dent of the particles’ speeds. Others suggested that there
would be a compensation for an increase in particle speed by
a greater volume. Similar arguments, in which changes in
two quantities are assumed to compensate so that a third
remains constant, have also been noted in the context of the
macroscopic variables in the ideal gas law as well as other
topics, such as single-particle dynamics and buoyancy.2,11
B. Analysis of incorrect responses related to temperature
It was apparent in their responses to the problems that
students often misinterpreted the concept of temperature at a
microscopic level. Two difficulties were particularly com-
mon.
Kautz et al. 1066
 Mistakenly assuming that lower (greater) particle density
implies lower (greater) temperature. On the kinetic-energy
task, about 20% of the introductory students stated incor-
rectly that the average kinetic energy of the gas molecules
decreases in an expansion at constant pressure. 共For a com-
pression, the corresponding incorrect answer was given by
slightly more than 25% of the students.兲 In explaining why
the average kinetic energy is lower at the greater volume,
students referred to the space allotted to each gas particle
共that is, the reciprocal of the particle density兲. The following
response was typical: “The average kinetic energy per mol-
ecule will decrease as the volume gets larger. The molecules
will have more freedom of motion, therefore they will move
less.”
When students elaborated on this perceived relationship
between particle density and temperature, they often referred
to collisions between the gas molecules. In interview situa-
tions, they often tried to describe their ideas in greater detail.
Sometimes they made analogies to human behavior 共for ex-
ample, reactions of people who are crowded into a small
room兲. For example, in discussing a compression, one stu-
dent explained why a greater density leads to greater tem-
perature: “Because you’re all kind of cramped in there…,
you want to move…, because all that energy is pent-up so to
speak…. They’re doing the same thing, they want to get out,
and so it’s getting hotter.”
As mentioned in Ref. 2, many students seemed to have
trouble reasoning with multi-variable equations in addition to
their difficulties that were specific to an ideal gas. The fol-
lowing example shows that it is often difficult to separate the
two: “The average kinetic energy decreases because PV
= nRT. As V increases, T would have to decrease. The
amount of ideal gas remained the same, as did the pressure.
The molecules lose kinetic energy.”
On the basis of similar responses in student interviews, it
appears likely that this student had a preconceived notion
that the average kinetic energy decreases during the expan-
sion and then used flawed reasoning with the ideal gas law to
support this belief.
Mistakenly assuming that molecular collisions generate
kinetic energy. Some students imagined a mechanism by
which the frequency of collisions between gas particles due
to their greater 共or lesser兲 number density results in an in-
crease 共or decrease兲 in temperature and suggested that the
collisions would produce or release heat. This argument may
lead to a correct answer for an adiabatic process but not for
an isobaric one.4 “There is more room for the molecules to
move around in and hence they won’t collide as often. There-
fore the average kinetic energy will be lower.” “Average ki-
netic energy increases since gas enclosed by smaller volume,
so air molecules more likely to come … in contact with each
other …. This results in an increase in temperature and an
increase in average kinetic energy.”
The difference in performance on the compression and
expansion versions of the kinetic energy task is consistent
with the belief that collisions between particles can account
for an increase in kinetic energy. This belief is elicited more
frequently in the case of compression than expansion. Stu-
dents who think that interactions between particles can
change the temperature of a gas do not realize that this
mechanism does not allow for a steady state in which the
temperature does not change. The change in internal energy
is attributed to a process inside the system rather than an
1067 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 73, No. 11, November 2005
interaction with its surroundings.12 The role of work and heat
in transferring energy between a system and its surroundings
is not recognized.
C. Analysis of incorrect responses related to the number
of moles
During interviews and on written problems that involved
pressure and temperature at a macroscopic level, students
often made irrelevant assumptions about gas particles or re-
ferred to incomplete models of pressure. These ideas often
misled them to conclude that equal volumes of different
gases under the same conditions contain different numbers of
particles.
Not recognizing the substance independence of the ideal
gas law. On the two-tanks task and similar questions, only
about half of the introductory students gave answers consis-
tent with the substance independence of the ideal gas law
共Avogadro’s law兲. Most of the others stated that there would
be a greater number of particles of the gas with the smaller
molar mass.
Mistakenly assuming that a greater number of smaller
molecules is needed to fill a given volume. Students fre-
quently treated an ideal gas as if each of the particles in it
had a non-negligible volume and these were closely spaced.
The belief that a larger number of smaller molecules is
needed to fill a given volume is illustrated in the following
quote: “The two volumes … are the same. The molecule that
takes up less space would be present in greater amounts than
the other.”
None of the students who gave this type of explanation
referred explicitly to the distance between particles, or to
whether anything occupies the space between them. Re-
search on children’s understanding of the particulate model
of matter has revealed that they often resist the idea of a
vacuum between particles.13 University students may have
the same reaction.
Another common claim was that the mass of the mol-
ecules is an indication of how many are needed to “fill a
given volume.” It is possible that these students may have
failed to distinguish clearly between mass and volume.14 Al-
ternatively, they may have inferred from the greater molar or
molecular mass that the size of a single particle must be
greater.
Mistakenly assuming that a greater number of lighter mol-
ecules is needed to produce a given pressure. More than
one-third of the students who gave incorrect answers to the
two-tanks problem or similar tasks focused on the depen-
dence of the pressure on the mass of the molecules. They
apparently thought that it takes a greater number of the
lighter molecules to generate a given pressure 共or exert a
given force兲 at a given volume and temperature. They did not
seem to realize that the lighter molecules are moving faster
共resulting in the same average kinetic energy per particle兲.
The following comment is from the calculus-based course.
“The number of hydrogen molecules is greater than that of
the nitrogen molecules. The hydrogen molecules have less
mass and thus exert less force than the nitrogen, and there
must 关be兴 more molecules to equal the force of the nitrogen.”
On a related task, another student in the same course used
a similar argument when comparing the pressures of two gas
samples 共one of helium, the other of argon兲. He explicitly
assumed the root-mean-square velocities of the two gases to
be the same at equal temperatures and decided that the gas
Kautz et al. 1067
with a greater molar mass must have a greater pressure:
“P = 1 / 3 ␳m具v2典. v ⬃ T, same temperature. 关Thus兴
P ⬃ ␳m . ␳m共Ar兲 ⬎ ␳m共He兲 共because greater molar mass兲.
关Thus兴 PA ⬎ PB.”
A few students made the opposite argument, stating that
the smaller mass of the hydrogen particles leads to a greater
average speed or kinetic energy and, hence, to a larger pres-
sure. The way in which students understand temperature or
pressure in microscopic terms can affect their understanding
of the other concept.
Misinterpreting the quantities n, M, NA, and R. Many stu-
dents confused the number of moles in a given sample, n,
with the molar mass of a type of gas, M. Also common were
incorrect interpretations of the quantities NA, Avogadro’s
number, and R, the universal gas constant.15 Usually the mis-
interpretations were not explicit, but were implied by the use
of algebraic expressions. Some students seemed to think that
n must have different values for different gases. For ex-
ample, they frequently set n equal to 32 for oxygen and to 2
for hydrogen in the ideal gas law, or used those values for NA
when converting the number of moles to the number of mol-
ecules for the respective gases. Because misinterpretations of
this type 共as well as some algebraic errors兲 almost inevitably
led to the same answer—“there are more hydrogen
molecules”—we believe that many of these students had an
intuitive feeling that there should be fewer molecules of the
heavier species and that the algebraic manipulation was
merely used to justify this preconceived response.
V. RESEARCH-BASED INSTRUCTION TO IMPROVE
STUDENT UNDERSTANDING
Our group draws on findings from research to develop
tutorials to help students overcome important conceptual and
reasoning difficulties through guided inquiry.3,16 Although
primarily designed for small-group settings, the tutorials on
thermal physics have been used at UW as interactive tutorial
lectures in which there are many students and one
instructor.17 Each tutorial sequence consists of a pretest,
worksheet, homework, and post-test. During the lectures,
students collaborate with their neighbors on tutorial work-
sheets. These consist of carefully sequenced questions that
guide students through the reasoning needed to develop a
sound conceptual understanding. At intervals ranging from
5 to 20 min, the instructor initiates a discussion based on the
questions.
The research described in this paper underlies part of a
published tutorial on the ideal gas law and an unpublished
tutorial worksheet on microscopic processes.18 In the first
three parts of the ideal gas law tutorial 共described in Ref. 2兲,
students are guided to construct operational definitions for
the macroscopic variables, examine their relationship to one
another, and interpret PV diagrams.2 The fourth part of the
tutorial is on the substance independence of the ideal gas law
and is summarized below. We then describe a version of a
tutorial worksheet that treats temperature from a microscopic
perspective.
A. Substance independence of the ideal gas law
The students apply the ideal gas law to two different gases
共hydrogen and oxygen兲 with the same volume and tempera-
ture sealed in identical vertical cylinders. Values for the mo-
lar masses are provided. After considering the external con-
1068 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 73, No. 11, November 2005
ditions 共identical movable pistons兲 and recognizing that these
imply equal pressures, the students compare the number of
moles. As a safeguard against unnoticed misunderstandings,
they are asked to check their answers for consistency with
the ideal gas law. They compare the masses of the hydrogen
and oxygen samples and realize that equal numbers of moles
of different gases can have the same pressure, volume, and
temperature, in spite of different masses. They next consider
a fictional dialogue in which a student suggests that there
would be more hydrogen molecules because of their smaller
size. Another student disagrees, arguing that there would be
more oxygen molecules because n is greater for oxygen than
for hydrogen, thus making the common error of confusing
molar mass with n. The students are asked to identify the
flaws in both statements.
B. Temperature in the microscopic model of an ideal
gas
In the unpublished tutorial worksheet on the microscopic
model, students considered a collision between two gas par-
ticles that move at different speeds. They were asked to com-
pare the initial kinetic energies. From information given
about one particle after the collision, the students could infer
that the speed of the other particle has decreased. They are
then led to generalize that collisions between gas particles
have no effect on the average kinetic energy and, thus, on the
temperature of the gas. To reinforce this idea, there is a fic-
tional dialogue between two students about an experiment in
which a gas is moved from a larger container to one that is
smaller. One student mistakenly claims that the temperature
of the gas must have increased due to the increased fre-
quency of collisions between particles in the smaller volume.
This statement is contradicted by the other student, who says
that the temperature cannot be inferred from the given data
without knowing how the pressure may have changed. The
students are asked with which fictional student, if either, they
agree. The dialogue also helps address difficulties with the
interdependence of the variables.2
VI. PROBLEMS DESIGNED TO ASSESS STUDENT
LEARNING
After working through the tutorial and the tutorial work-
sheet, students in the algebra-based course were given a va-
riety of post-tests on course examinations. We sometimes
were able to give the same problems to students who had
only standard instruction, thus enabling a direct comparison.
Other tasks that were used to probe student understanding
provided additional benchmarks for assessing the effect of
research-based instruction. In general, we try to ensure that
post-tests are likely to elicit the types of incorrect reasoning
that the instructional materials are intended to address. The
goal is to obtain a realistic measure of the effectiveness of
the materials and guidance in revising them if necessary.
The first two examples that follow relate to the substance
independence of the ideal gas law. The other two focus on
microscopic processes in an ideal gas.
A. Flexible-container task
Students were shown a flexible container with an un-
known, but fixed, number of hydrogen molecules. A similar
container 共not shown兲 is described as having an equal num-
Kautz et al. 1068
Fig. 2. The particle-speed task. Students were shown a PV diagram and
asked to compare the temperatures and average particle speeds for the states
labeled A and B.
ber of nitrogen molecules. Both gas samples are at the same
pressure and temperature and are to be considered ideal. Stu-
dents are asked whether the hydrogen container is bigger
than, smaller than, or the same size as the nitrogen container.
The problem was given on a mid-term examination. About
85% of the students recognized that the containers would be
the same size 关N ⬃ 125兴. In a section of the course with only
standard instruction, about 55% of the students gave a cor-
rect answer, with most of the others saying that the nitrogen
container would be larger 关N ⬃ 60兴.
B. Two-tanks task (variation)
To check whether the success rate represented a robust
improvement in student learning, we gave a problem that we
considered more difficult on the final examination in the
same course.19 The students were shown two identical rigid
tanks that contain helium and neon gas, respectively, and
were told that the number of atoms in each tank is the same
and that both are at the same temperature. The students were
first asked to compare the average kinetic energies and
speeds of the gas particles in the two tanks and then to com-
pare the two pressures. More than 95% recognized that the
pressures are the same.
C. Particle-speed task
Students were asked to compare the temperatures and av-
erage particle speeds for two states of an ideal gas sample
represented as points on a PV diagram. A grid allowed them
to compare the values of the respective pressures and vol-
umes 共see Fig. 2兲. They could determine how the tempera-
tures compare using the ideal gas law and the values of P
and V obtained from the grid. In other situations, we had
seen many students manipulate the ideal gas law 共often in-
correctly兲 to support an answer based on microscopic con-
siderations. In order to assess student learning, we wanted to
design a post-test task for which this type of approach would
lead to an incorrect conclusion. Therefore, the particle-speed
task involves a process in which the state with the smaller
volume has a greater pressure but a lower temperature. Thus
the tendency to associate greater particle density and higher
pressure with greater temperature would yield an incorrect
answer. About 95% of the students 关N ⬃ 125兴 made a correct
1069 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 73, No. 11, November 2005
Fig. 3. The kinetic energy task 共post-test version兲. The students were shown
a PV diagram depicting a cyclic process and asked to compare the average
kinetic energy per particle for states X and Y. This task was part of an
examination problem that included other questions about the cyclic process.
comparison of the temperatures. More than 90% gave correct
reasoning. About 85% correctly compared the average par-
ticle speeds. About 75% gave correct reasoning.
D. Kinetic energy task
A version of the kinetic energy task described earlier was
also given as a post-test. The percentage of correct answers
was about the same as with standard instruction 共70%兲 关N
⬃ 245兴. The percentage with correct reasoning was about
50%, compared to about 40% with standard instruction.
There were fewer incorrect associations of temperature with
particle density. In interpreting these results, it is important
to note that the version given after standard instruction was
embedded in a longer examination problem dealing with a
cyclic process. A PV diagram showing the process had been
drawn for the students, and values for the temperatures at the
initial and final states had been given 共see Fig. 3兲. In prin-
ciple, the students could read the temperature off the graph
and conclude directly that the average kinetic energy had
increased in this process. This way of solving the problem
was not possible on the version given to the students who
had completed the tutorial worksheet.
VII. CONCLUSION
The research described in this paper was motivated by
results from our investigation of student understanding of the
macroscopic variables in the ideal gas law. During our analy-
sis of the results, we noticed that many of the student diffi-
culties with these variables at a macroscopic level are linked
to misinterpretations of microscopic processes. Therefore,
we decided to study the ideas that students have about mi-
croscopic entities and processes in the context of an ideal
gas. In this paper, we illustrated how students often justify
incorrect answers about the behavior of an ideal gas by an
incorrect or incomplete microscopic model, even on tasks
that do not require application of such a model. Guided by
findings reported in both papers on the ideal gas law, we
have developed a set of tutorials and a tutorial laboratory
Kautz et al. 1069
experiment to help students deepen their understanding of
the macroscopic variables and to help them construct a more
correct and useful microscopic model.
The results from the post-tests described in this paper in-
dicate that research-based instruction can substantially im-
prove student understanding of Avogadro’s law. In particular,
when difficulties with the substance-independence of an
ideal gas are explicitly addressed, almost all the students
seem able to develop a robust understanding that can with-
stand some powerful distracters in post-test questions. Al-
though not as successful in helping students understand tem-
perature at a microscopic level, there is evidence that the
tutorial worksheet helps them separate the concepts of tem-
perature and particle density.
We hope that the insights that we have gained from the
iterative process of research and research-based curriculum
development will be useful to physics instructors and to fac-
ulty in other disciplines, for example, chemistry and engi-
neering. Because thermal phenomena are included at all lev-
els of science instruction, we think that there also are strong
implications for the development of instructional materials
for K-12 students and for the preparation of their teachers.
Below are some reflections based on our experience.
To be able to apply concepts from mechanics properly to
thermal physics, students need a stronger command of that
material than most acquire during a typical introductory
course. The difference in results on the rebounding-particle
task between those who had and had not worked through the
mechanics tutorials suggests that a thorough review of the
relevant mechanics can promote a better understanding of
the behavior of gases. As discussed in Ref. 2, we found that
students often needed explicit help in relating the variables in
the ideal gas law to the real world, for example, pressure and
temperature to the devices that measure and/or control them.
Many students did not seem to understand the role of ide-
alization in the construction and interpretation of micro-
scopic models. They often treated ideal gas particles like
macroscopic objects to which a volume and temperature
could be ascribed. Sometimes they referred to collisions be-
tween particles in trying to account for changes in tempera-
ture during expansion or compression.
These concerns, which are supported by our findings in
other investigations, have led us to question the advisability
of emphasizing microscopic models early in the study of
thermal physics before students have become sufficiently fa-
miliar with the macroscopic phenomena that the models have
been developed to explain.20 It is vitally important to ensure
that the ideas that students internalize at the microscopic
level are correct and sufficiently complete. Without such in-
tervention, it is very likely that the models that they develop
will have a negative effect, not only on their understanding
of microscopic processes, but also of related macroscopic
phenomena.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The investigation described in this paper has been a col-
laborative effort by many members of the Physics Education
Group. Substantive contributions were made by Michael E.
Loverude. Mark N. McDermott made valuable suggestions
that contributed to the development of the tutorial worksheet
on the microscopic model. The authors deeply appreciate the
cooperation of faculty whose classes participated in the study
at UW, the University of Cincinnati, the University of Mary-
1070 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 73, No. 11, November 2005
land, and Syracuse University. They also gratefully acknowl-
edge support from the National Science Foundation by the
Division of Undergraduate Education and the Physics Divi-
sion.
a兲
Present address: Hamburg University of Technology, 21071 Hamburg,
Germany.
1
In most of the courses in this study, the ideal gas law is expressed as
PV = nRT, where n is the number of moles. In a few cases, the law was
expressed as PV = NkT, where N is the number of molecules.
2
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 per-
spective,” Am. J. Phys. 73, 1055–1063 共2005兲.
3
L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group at
the University of Washington, Tutorials in Introductory Physics 共Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002兲.
4
See M. E. Loverude, C. H. Kautz, and P. R. L. Heron, “Student under-
standing of the first law of thermodynamics: Relating work to the adia-
batic compression of an ideal gas,” Am. J. Phys. 70, 137–148 共2002兲.
5
For a succinct description of this research method, see L. C. McDermott,
“Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned—Closing the
gap,” Am. J. Phys. 59, 301–315 共1991兲. This article includes references
to papers that give specific examples.
6
Some of the course instructors state this qualitative model explicitly be-
fore or after going through the formal mathematical derivation of pres-
sure in the microscopic model.
7
In some cases, the term incident particle flux or the symbol ⌽ were
explicitly used; in other cases, only a verbal description of the quantity
was given. The results did not seem to differ.
8
Although inter-molecular collisions play no role in the derivation of the
ideal gas equations of state, collisions between molecules are referred to
in the postulates presented in many introductory textbooks, including
those used in courses in which the tutorials described in this article were
tested. 共These texts stipulate that the collisions are elastic and of negli-
gible duration.兲 Moreover, students clearly believe that such collisions are
important. Therefore, we think it is appropriate to deal with them in the
tutorial.
9
In one section of the algebra-based course, the problem was given before
the relevant lectures. In an informal poll, almost all students indicated
that they had previously studied the ideal gas law, usually in a college
chemistry course. The results did not differ much from those obtained in
other sections after standard instruction.
10
The tendency to treat vectors as scalars in finding the difference of two
vectors is also discussed in the context of collisions in P. S. Shaffer and L.
C. McDermott, “A research-based approach to improving student under-
standing of kinematical concepts,” Am. J. Phys. 73, 921–931 共2005兲.
11
For other examples of compensation reasoning, see R. A. Lawson and L.
C. McDermott, “Student understanding of the work-energy and impulse-
momentum theorems,” Am. J. Phys. 55, 811–817 共1987兲; T. O’Brien
Pride, S. Vokos, and L. C. McDermott, “The challenge of matching learn-
ing assessments to teaching goals: An example from the work-energy and
impulse-momentum theorems,” ibid. 66, 147–156 共1998兲; M. E. Lover-
ude, C. H. Kautz, and P. R. L. Heron, “Helping students develop an
understanding of Archimedes’ principle, Part I: Research on student un-
derstanding,” ibid. 71, 1178–1187 共2003兲.
12
A situation in which the temperature of a gas is changed as a result of
processes in the interior of the gas is a chemical reaction between differ-
ent substances. In that case, one form of internal energy 共that is, chemi-
cal兲 is changed to another 共that is, thermal兲. Students may fail to distin-
guish between the two cases and interpret an adiabatic compression as a
process similar to a chemical reaction.
13
S. Novick and J. Nussbaum, “Junior high school pupils’ understanding of
the particulate nature of matter: An interview study,” Sci. Educ. 62,
273–281 共1978兲; S. Novick and J. Nussbaum, “Pupils’ understanding of
the particulate nature of matter: A cross-age study,” ibid. 65, 187–196
共1981兲.
14
Difficulties with mass and volume are frequently seen at the pre-college
level. At the college level, such difficulties still occur. See, for example,
the last article in Ref. 11.
15
In a few instances, even the subscripts describing the stoichiometric com-
position of a given compound 共as in H2O兲 were confused with the molar
mass or the number of moles.
Kautz et al. 1070
16
For a brief discussion of this instructional approach as implemented by
the Physics Education Group, and a description of the tutorials and their
implementation, see L. C. McDermott, Oersted Medal Lecture 2001:
“Physics education research—The key to student learning,” Am. J. Phys.
69, 1127–1137 共2001兲.
17
For a description of interactive tutorial lectures, see P. R. L. Heron, M. E.
Loverude, P. S. Shaffer, and L. C. McDermott, “Helping students develop
an understanding of Archimedes’ Principle, Part II: Development of
research-based instructional materials,” Am. J. Phys. 71, 1188–1195
共2003兲.
18
Reference 3, pp. 227–230.
1071 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 73, No. 11, November 2005
19
We have found that students who incorrectly answer questions based on
the ideal gas law are often misled by incorrect or incomplete microscopic
models. Since the second post-test question starts from a microscopic
perspective, we regard it as more difficult than the first.
20
Some physicists take a different instructional approach. They argue that
introducing a microscopic model makes it easier for students to think
about both macroscopic and microscopic phenomena. See, for example,
R. W. Chabay and B. A. Sherwood, “Bringing atoms into first-year phys-
ics,” Am. J. Phys. 67, 1045–1050 共2001兲; F. Reif, “Thermal physics in
the introductory physics course: Why and how to teach it from a unified
atomic perspective,” ibid. 67, 1051–1062 共2001兲.
Kautz et al. 1071