PHYSICAL REVIEW SPECIAL TOPICS - PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH 10, 013101 (2014)

Student reasoning about electrostatic and gravitational potential energy:

An exploratory study with interdisciplinary consequences
Beth A. Lindsey
Physics, Penn State Greater Allegheny, McKeesport, Pennsylvania 15132, USA
(Received 12 August 2013; published 17 January 2014)
This paper describes an investigation into student reasoning about potential energy in the context of
introductory electrostatics. Similar incorrect reasoning patterns emerged both in written questions
administered after relevant instruction and in one-on-one interviews. These reasoning patterns are also
prevalent in responses to questions posed about gravitational potential energy in the context of universal
gravitation in introductory mechanics. This finding is relevant for interdisciplinary research, because many
courses in multiple disciplines first introduce the concept of electric potential energy in analogy to
gravitational potential energy. The results suggest that in introductory courses students do not gain an
understanding of potential energy that is sufficiently robust to apply in more advanced physics courses or in
disciplines other than physics, in which students must frequently reason with energy in the context of
interactions between atoms and molecules.

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.013101 PACS numbers: 01.40.Fk, 01.55.+b

I. INTRODUCTION tendencies described here are extremely prevalent and

persistent and have implications for future research as well
The topic of energy has recently been receiving
as for instruction and curriculum development.
increased attention in the physics education research
(PER) literature [1–5]. The emphasis on energy has been
particularly strong in interdisciplinary education research. II. CONTEXT OF INVESTIGATION
Work focused on an interdisciplinary treatment of energy Research was conducted in introductory calculus-based
suggests that energy concepts learned in physics do not physics courses at two campuses of the Pennsylvania
address the molecular-level understanding of energy that State University (PSU), Penn State Greater Allegheny
students will need in order to make sense of energy in (PSU-GA), and Penn State Erie–the Behrend College
chemical and biological contexts [6] and that developing a (PSU-Erie). Introductory mechanics and electricity and
strong understanding of potential energy is particularly magnetism are offered every semester, primarily serving
important [7]. Several studies have focused on how learners students who expect to enter engineering majors. Students
use energy to account for physical phenomena [1,3,5] and taking physics at PSU-GA complete the first two years of
how students reason about transfers of energy between their major at the campus, and then move to a larger campus to
systems [8,9]. With a few exceptions [10], however, very complete their major. In contrast, many students remain at
little research has specifically examined student under- PSU-Erie for all four years of their undergraduate studies.
standing of potential energy. Each campus admits about 80% of students who apply.
The present study aims to investigate student thinking Typical physics class enrollments at PSU-GA range from
about potential energy in introductory electrostatics and 15 to 40, depending on whether the course is on or off
universal gravitation, both of which are relevant to an sequence. At PSU-Erie, multiple sections of a course, each
interdisciplinary approach to energy. We show that even enrolling about 70 students, are offered every semester.
after instruction in typical introductory contexts, students Delivery of course content is standardized across all sections.
reason about potential energy in a variety of unproductive Instructors at both campuses teach interactively and use
ways, indicating a possible lack of a functional under- PER-based materials extensively. Courses use interactive
standing of potential energy. Some of the reasoning path- materials developed in-house as well as Peer Instruction
ways that students employ demonstrate the use of questions [11], small-group problem solving, and work-
productive resources, but these are frequently deployed sheets such as Tutorials in Introductory Physics [12].
in ways that lead to incorrect results. The reasoning
III. INVESTIGATION OF STUDENT REASONING
ON POTENTIAL ENERGY
Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distri- Previous research [9] described student reasoning about
bution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the changes in potential energy for a pendulum moving
the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. near the surface of the Earth. The potential energy is

1554-9178=14=10(1)=013101(6) 013101-1 Published by the American Physical Society

SHORT PAPERS PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES 10, 013101 (2014)

properly associated with the system consisting of these two blocks are being moved apart (the “oppositely charged
objects taken together [13,14]. Although students fre- blocks” scenario). The blocks begin and end at rest. In each
quently do not distinguish between the pendulum alone case, students were asked to identify whether the electric
and the pendulum-Earth system, they do typically recog- potential energy of the two-block system increases,
nize that there is a decrease in potential energy as the ball decreases, or stays the same. Students might intuitively
moves from its starting position to its lowest position [9]. recognize which sets of objects could gain more kinetic
The main focus of the present study is on whether energy if released from rest in the positions shown, and use
students would similarly recognize whether potential that to draw conclusions about potential energy. More
energy is increasing or decreasing for situations involving formally, they could reason that positive work is done on
objects of similar scale that attract each other gravitation- each system. Therefore, the potential energy must increase
ally, or attract or repel via electrostatic forces. The (kinetic energy does not change). Finally, students could
electrostatic situations are more relevant to interdisciplinary reason mathematically by applying the formula for the
contexts (such as chemical bonding), while the gravita- electric potential energy of a system of two point charges,
tional contexts are frequently used as a bridge between q1 and q2 , separated by a distance R∶ Ue ¼ kq1 q2 =R. This
near-Earth gravitation and electrostatic interactions. approach requires careful attention to the sign of each of the
charges and their overall product.
A. Results from written problems on electrostatics This problem was administered as part of an in-class
pretest in four sections at PSU-GA taught by the author.
The “two charged blocks” problem was posed to
Students completed the pretest after interactive lecture
students in order to probe thinking about potential energy
instruction on electric potential energy but did so before
in electrostatics. This problem consists of two different
working through a guided-inquiry tutorial on the topic.
scenarios (see Fig. 1): in one, two positively charged blocks
Results are shown in the first two columns of Table I.
are being pushed toward one another (the “like-charged
Because of small class enrollments and differences in
blocks” scenario); in the other, two oppositely charged
administration of the pretest, correct response rates varied
among the four sections in which this pretest was given.
t = t1
Students tended to do well on the like-charged blocks
+Qo +Qo scenario, with more than 70% (in some cases, as many as
95%) responding correctly that the potential energy
increases. In contrast, in no case did more than 45% of
Hands push the blocks toward each other. students respond correctly to the oppositely charged blocks
scenario. The most common incorrect response was that the
t = t2 potential energy of this system decreases. Nearly half of
the students giving this response stated that this was due to
+Qo +Qo the increase in distance between the charged blocks, with
no further explanation. A few elaborated, attributing a
decrease in potential energy to the decreased interaction
(a)
between the blocks: “Because the blocks are further apart,
t = t3 the electric fields have less of an effect on one another,
resulting in a decrease in the electric potential energy.”
-Qo +Qo (Note that similar incorrect reasoning would lead to a
“correct” response for the like-charged blocks scenario.)

Hands push the blocks away from each other . B. Results from interviews on electrostatics
t = t4 The two charged blocks problem was also posed in an
interview format. The interviews were conducted with
-Qo +Qo
student volunteers from an introductory E&M class at
PSU-GA, not taught by the author, after students had taken
(b) an exam on the relevant material. Four of the nineteen
students in the course agreed to participate in interviews.
FIG. 1. The two charged blocks problem. Students were asked Excerpts from two of these interviews are included here. In
to identify whether potential energy was increasing, decreasing, the interview, students were first presented with the like-
or staying the same when (a) two like-charged blocks are pushed
toward one another and (b) two oppositely charged blocks are charged blocks scenario [Fig. 1(a)]. The following excerpt
pushed away from one another. In each case, the blocks begin and took place when the interviewer asked the student (S1) to
end at rest. describe “what’s going on with energy in this situation”:

013101-2
SHORT PAPERS PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES 10, 013101 (2014)

TABLE I: Student responses regarding potential energy (PE) on the two charged blocks and two massive blocks problems. Results
were obtained after interactive instruction on the relevant topics. Values given are the mean across four and nine sections for the two
charged blocks and the two massive blocks problems, respectively. Values in parentheses reflect the 95% confidence interval based on
variances among the samples. In all tables, the percentages include both students who did and who did not provide correct explanations.

PSU-GA N ¼ 70 PSU-GA and PSU-Erie N ¼ 307

Two charged blocks: Two charged blocks: Two massive
like-charged scenario oppositely charged scenario blocks
PE increases (correct) 84% (64%–100%) 36% (19%–53%) 34% (26%–42%)
PE decreases 10% (0%–26%) 55% (39%–81%) 53% (44%–62%)
PE does not change 5% (0%–10%) 8% (0%–20%) 13% (8%–18%)

S1: “They would be repelling each other, so … the closer and less. So from the initial to the final, there was greater
together they get, the more potential energy they would initial … interaction than there was final, so … that would
have.… If the external force acting on them were to be negative?”
disappear, they would repel each other, which would In another interview, a student invokes the equation
convert into kinetic energy, so … I guess, they would be Ue ¼ kq1 q2 =R throughout the interview whenever asked
resisting the motion, the direction of motion that they about potential energy. However, he never associates a sign
would be traveling in, and so … I guess would the energy with this equation. When presented with the oppositely
from the two systems, be … would it grow as they got charged blocks scenario, he invokes this equation as well as
closer together?” reasoning based on forces:
Later on, the student reiterates: S2: “Potential energy is decreasing. Because the R is
S1: “…There would be growing tension, exponentially, bigger. And the [force] here [where the blocks are close
as they got closer and closer together. So I feel like there together] is bigger. [Force] here [where the blocks are
would be more interacting energy as they got closer.” farther apart] is smaller. Makes sense.”
The student recognizes that the energy of the system
would increase as the blocks are moved toward each other, C. Results from written problems on gravitation
and provides three explanations to support this: “they
To determine whether these reasoning patterns are
would repel each other, which would convert into kinetic
unique to electrostatics, similar problems were posed in
energy,” “they would be resisting the motion,” and “there
the context of universal gravitation. Written problems about
would be growing tension.” This third explanation suggests
gravitational potential energy were posed at both PSU-GA
that the student may be conflating force and energy, an idea
and PSU-Erie after students had been introduced to
that also arises when he examines the oppositely charged
the universal form of gravitational potential energy:
blocks scenario.
Ug ¼ −Gm1 m2 =R.
The student is then presented with the oppositely
The “two massive blocks” problem is an exact
charged blocks scenario, and asked to describe the sign
analog of the oppositely charged blocks scenario. The
of the change in electric potential energy in each case. The
diagram was identical to Fig. 1(b), except that the
student indicates that for the like-charged blocks scenario,
blocks were not labeled with charges. In the problem
the change is positive. When asked about the oppositely
statement, students were reminded, “even small objects
charged blocks scenario, he responds,
attract each other gravitationally.” Just as in the oppo-
S1: “I was going to say, it would have to be negative
sitely charged blocks scenario, students were asked
since they are moving apart, but this case has a negative
whether the potential energy of the system increases,
charge and a positive charge, so I would say that … uh … I
guess it would be … positive also, because it’s resisting— decreases, or remains the same as the blocks are moved
both cases are resisting, I guess.” apart. Results for this problem are shown in the third
The student’s initial instinct is that this case will be column of Table I.
The “orbit” problem was designed to investigate whether
opposite the previous case, but he spontaneously corrects
himself, apparently recognizing that because the blocks similar difficulties would arise in a typical orbital context.
would “resist” moving apart, this would result in an Students were shown a diagram of a spacecraft in an
increase in potential energy. The student then continues, elliptical orbit around the Earth (see Fig. 2) and asked what
however: happens to the potential and kinetic energy as the spacecraft
S1: “No, OK, I’d say it’s negative because in this case, moves from point A to point B. Students were expected to
the blocks are—the forces between them are greater the conclude that as the distance between the spacecraft and the
closer they are, and then as they move apart they get less Earth increases, the potential energy must increase and the

013101-3
SHORT PAPERS PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES 10, 013101 (2014)

massive blocks problem decreases. It seems plausible that

these students were able to reason successfully in the orbits
B problem in analogy to familiar near-Earth situations, but
they were unable to extend that reasoning to the context of
A Earth C the two massive blocks.

D. Discussion
In each of the problems, the majority of students were
unable to analyze the changes in the system’s potential
energy correctly. Instead, reasoning that the potential
FIG. 2. The orbits problem. Students were asked to determine energy of a system must scale with the force between
whether the kinetic and potential energy of the spacecraft-Earth objects in the system was prevalent. An interview subject
system each increase, decrease, or stay the same as the spacecraft even abandoned a correct analysis of potential energy in
moves from point A to point B. favor of reasoning based on the strength of the interaction,
suggesting that this approach is highly attractive to
kinetic energy must correspondingly decrease. The results students.
Another possibility is that students’ difficulties with
are shown in Table II.
potential energy in situations involving attractive forces
In both of these problems, the most common incorrect
may be related to the fact that these situations are described
response was that the potential energy of the system
using negative energy functions. Few students who cited an
decreases. As in the two charged blocks problem, many
equation relating potential energy and distance in their
students (35%–45%) supported their responses in one or
reasoning for the two massive blocks problem included a
both of these problems simply by referencing the increasing
negative sign with that equation. It has been documented
distance between the objects. At PSU-Erie, on the two that students struggle with the idea of negative energy
massive blocks problem, 14% of students explicitly refer- [4,15]. Many students may recognize that potential energy
enced the force between the blocks in their reasoning about should be zero when two objects are infinitely far apart, but
potential energy, while 18% mentioned the equation for then draw incorrect conclusions. For instance, on the two
potential energy, Ug ¼ −Gm1 m2 =R. (Only 1=3 of the massive blocks problem, one student stated, “Since
students who mentioned the equation explicitly include PE ¼ −GMm=R, as you increase R, the total potential
the negative sign.) On the orbits problem these numbers energy of the system will decrease. Notice that as R
were slightly lower, at only 8% each. becomes closer and closer to infinity, the potential energy
Both the orbits and the two massive blocks problems of the system approaches zero.”
were administered (in that order) as a single “pretest” at It is likely that the common reasoning patterns described
PSU-Erie, allowing for a direct comparison between do not reflect stable “misconceptions.” In fact, many
responses for these questions. There are matched data students give inconsistent responses for the two massive
for 226 students. Only about 22% of students responded blocks and the orbits problems. The fact that this response
that the potential energy increases in both problems. The pattern arises in so many contexts, however, suggests that
most common response pattern, given by 38% of students, common incorrect reasoning patterns should be addressed
was that the potential energy decreases in both. The in instruction and examined further in research.
remaining students gave inconsistent responses for the
two problems. The most common of these, given by
IV. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
17% of students, was that the potential energy in the orbits
problem increases while the potential energy in the two This paper has described an investigation into student
understanding of potential energy in contexts beyond the
springs and near-Earth gravitation frequently employed in
TABLE II: Student responses to the orbit problem. Correct
responses are printed in bold. Values given are the mean across introductory mechanics. Results reveal that even after
five sections. Values in parentheses reflect the 95% confidence instruction on potential energy in typical introductory
interval based on variances among these samples. mechanics contexts, students lack an understanding suffi-
PSU-Erie N ¼ 232
ciently flexible to draw conclusions in new situations.
Instead, across a variety of contexts, they conflate potential
Kinetic energy Potential energy
energy with interaction strength. Even in situations where
Increases 23% (16%–30%) 46%ð37%–55%Þ students have learned a formula for potential energy, they
Decreases 51%ð45%–56%Þ 43% (33%–53%)
neglect key features of this formula (such as its sign) and
Does not change 25% (19%–31%) 11% (0%–25%)
still draw incorrect conclusions.

013101-4
SHORT PAPERS PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES 10, 013101 (2014)

This work suggests implications for instruction. Previous The results presented here have implications for research
authors [3,7] have emphasized the important role that into student understanding of energy in other contexts,
graphs of potential energy versus position play in helping particularly for chemical bonding and other interactions
students explain phenomena such as chemical bonding. mediated by an electrostatic interaction. Students’ tendency
Data in this study from PSU-Erie were collected after to mistakenly treat chemical bonds as entities that store
interactive instruction that required students to use a graph energy, which is released when the bonds are broken, is
of potential energy vs position to compare the gravitational well documented [16,17]. The results presented in this
potential energy of a satellite-Earth system for various paper suggest that it is not simply the language of bonds
distances between the satellite and the Earth. PSU-Erie “storing energy” that leads to this belief [18], but that this
students performed slightly better on the orbits problem concept may be related to a conflation of the forces
(closely related to this previous instruction) than on the two involved in chemical bonding and the energy associated
massive blocks problem, but despite this instruction fewer with the bond. Preliminary results [19] suggest that many
than 50% of students answered any question about the students reference intermolecular forces when asked ques-
change in potential energy correctly. tions similar to the oppositely charged blocks problem in
Initial attempts to improve student reasoning about the context of chemical bonding. The extent to which these
potential energy, including the development of a results relate to student difficulties in understanding the
tutorial worksheet in the style of Tutorials in energetics of chemical bonding, and the ways in which
Introductory Physics [12], have been only marginally improving student understanding of energy in physics can
successful. After completing a tutorial worksheet in also improve performance in chemistry courses, remain to
mechanics based on this work, students at PSU-Erie be investigated.
demonstrated superior performance on both the two
massive blocks problem (which they had previously ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
seen) and the oppositely charged blocks scenario
Thanks are due to Jonathan Hall and Paul Ashcraft for
(which was new to them). These students, however, were
less successful at the like-charged blocks scenario than allowing me access to their courses at Penn State Erie–the
typical PSU-GA students. These results suggest the Behrend College and for their willingness to pilot new
possibility that the initial version of the tutorial is not curriculum. I appreciate Megan Nagel’s thoughtful com-
leading to a greater understanding of potential energy mentary on this project and its implications for chemistry. I
among students and is instead causing them to replace one would like to thank Andrew Crouse and the Energy Project
“rule” (“greater force implies greater potential energy”) Group at Seattle Pacific University for discussions that
with an alternate rule (“greater distance implies greater inspired several of the questions used in this research.
potential energy”). While this rule holds for attractive Finally, I thank the PER Leadership Organizing Committee
interactions, it fails when students are asked to consider for the Scholar-in-Residence grant that funded my week
interactions involving repulsion. at SPU.

[1] R. E. Scherr, H. G. Close, S. B. McKagan, and S. Vokos, [6] B. W. Dreyfus, E. F. Redish, and J. Watkins, Student views
Representing energy. I. Representing a substance ontology of macroscopic and microscopic energy in physics and
for energy, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020114 biology, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 179 (2012).
(2012). [7] M. M. Cooper and M. W. Klymkowsky, The trouble with
[2] R. E. Scherr, H. G. Close, E. W. Close, and S. Vokos, chemical energy: Why understanding bond energies re-
Representing energy. II. Energy tracking representations, quires an interdisciplinary systems approach, CBE Life
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020115 (2012). Sci. Educ. 12, 306 (2013).
[3] E. Brewe, Energy as a substancelike quantity that [8] B. A. Lindsey, P. R. L. Heron, and P. S. Shaffer,
flows: Theoretical considerations and pedagogical conse- Student ability to apply the concepts of work and
quences, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 020106 (2011). energy to extended systems, Am. J. Phys. 77, 999
[4] B. W. Dreyfus, “Negative energy: Why interdisciplinary (2009).
physics requires multiple ontologies” (to be published). [9] B. A. Lindsey, P. R. L. Heron, and P. S. Shaffer, Student
[5] R. E. Scherr, H. G. Close, E. W. Close, V. J. Flood, S. B. understanding of energy: Difficulties related to systems,
McKagan, A. D. Robertson, L. Seeley, M. C. Wittmann, Am. J. Phys. 80, 154 (2012).
and S. Vokos, Negotiating energy dynamics through [10] M. E. Loverude, Student understanding of gravitational
embodied action in a materially structured environment, potential energy and the motion of bodies in a gravitational
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020105 (2013). field, AIP Conf. Proc. 790, 77 (2005).

013101-5
SHORT PAPERS PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES 10, 013101 (2014)

[11] C. H. Crouch and E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: Ten for classical systems, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 367
years of experience and results, Am. J. Phys. 69, 970 (2001). (2012).
[12] L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, the Physics Education [16] W. C. Galley, Exothermic bond breaking: A persistent
Group at the University of Washington, Tutorials in misconception, J. Chem. Educ. 81, 523 (2004).
Introductory Physics (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, [17] B. W. Dreyfus et al., Students’ interdisciplinary reasoning
NJ, 2002). about “high-energy bonds” and ATP, AIP Conf. Proc.
[13] J. W. Jewett, Energy and the confused student. II: Systems, 1513, 122 (2013).
Phys. Teach. 46, 81 (2008). [18] G. Miller, http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/members/
[14] J. W. Jewett, Energy and the confused student. III: courses/teachers_corner/49039.html.
Language, Phys. Teach. 46, 149 (2008). [19] M. Nagel and B. A. Lindsey, “Student understanding of
[15] B. Stephanik and P. S. Shaffer, Examining student chemical bond energy: Difficulties arising in physics”
ability to interpret and use potential energy diagrams (unpublished).

013101-6