Iranian Journal of Learning and Memory

Assessing High School Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Electric Potential Difference Using the SOLO Taxonomy

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Fateme Rahmani 1
Zahra Zeinali 2
Fatemeh Ahmadi 2

1 Department of Physics, Faculty of Basic Sciences, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Department of Physics, Faculty of Basic Sciences, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.22034/iepa.2026.578195.1592
Abstract
Objective: Electric potential difference is a fundamental concept in physics, yet students frequently experience conceptual difficulties in understanding it. Although previous research has documented common misconceptions through different assessment frameworks, relatively little is known about the structural quality of students' understanding as described by the SOLO taxonomy. Therefore, this study aimed to assess high school students' conceptual understanding of electric potential difference using the SOLO taxonomy and to identify the common misconceptions reflected in their responses.
Method: The study employed a descriptive study with a quantitative approach. The participants were 92 female high school students in grades 11 and 12. Data were collected using a researcher-developed open-ended diagnostic assessment ( ) aligned with the SOLO taxonomy. Written responses were analyzed to determine understanding levels and identify common misconceptions.
Results: Most students demonstrated understanding at the unistructural and multistructural levels, with few reaching relational or extended abstract levels. Analysis revealed persistent conceptual difficulties in distinguishing electric potential difference from electric potential and electrical energy, highlighting students' fragmented knowledge.

Keywords

Potential difference
SOLO taxonomy
Students' misconceptions
Subjects

Adeniji, S. M., Baker, P., & Schmude, M. (2022). Structure of the observed learning outcomes (SOLO) model: A mixed-method systematic review of research in mathematics education. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(6), Article em2119. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12087

Aripin, M. A., Hamzah, R., Setya, P., Hisham, M., & Ishar, M. (2020). Unveiling a new taxonomy in education field. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(3), 524–530. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i3.20458

Aronshtam, L., Shrot, T., & Shmallo, R. (2021). Can we do better? A classification of algorithm run-time-complexity improvement using the SOLO taxonomy. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 5851–5872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10532-0

Asadi, M., Azizinezhad, M., & Ehsani Fard, E. (2017). Formative assessment and feedback as predictors of students’ engagement. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8(Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language, Discourse and Pragmatics), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.22055/rals.2017.12933

Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. Academic Press. https://books.google.com/books/about/Evaluating_the_Quality_of_Learning.html?id=0kQmAQAAIAAJ

Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1989). Towards a model of school-based curriculum development and assessment using the SOLO taxonomy. Australian Journal of Education, 33(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494418903300205

Burde, J.-P., & Wilhelm, T. (2020). Teaching electric circuits with a focus on potential differences. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(2), Article 020153. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020153

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Action research. In Research methods in education (pp. 440–456). Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage. https://books.google.com/books/about/Research_Design.html?id=335ZDwAAQBAJ

Davies, O., & Mansour, N. (2022). Exploring the use of cognitive science approaches alongside SOLO taxonomy as a pedagogical framework to build deeper knowledge in science and foundation subjects at primary schools in UK. Education Sciences, 12(8), Article 523. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080523

De Florio, I. (2023). From assessment to feedback: Applications in the second/foreign language classroom. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009218948

Guth, J., & Pegg, J. (1994). First-year tertiary students' understandings of iron filing patterns around a magnet. Research in Science Education, 24(1), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356338

Heidari, E., & Bazgirpour, Y. (2025). Structural equation modeling of self-regulated learning strategies and problem-solving with the mediating role of metacognition among high school students in Khorramabad. Iranian Journal of Learning and Memory, 8(30), 30–49. https://doi.org/10.22034/iepa.2026.562500.1557

Hewitt, P. G. (2002). Conceptual physics. Addison Wesley.

Irvine, J. (2021). Taxonomies in education: Overview, comparison, and future directions. Journal of Education and Development, 5(2), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.20849/jed.v5i2.898

Keane, T., Keane, W. F., & Blicblau, A. S. (2016). Beyond traditional literacy: Learning and transformative practices using ICT. Education and Information Technologies, 21(4), 769–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9353-5

Knight, R. D. (2015). Physics for scientists and engineers. Pearson.

Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x

Leniz, A., Zuza, K., & Guisasola, J. (2017). Students’ reasoning when tackling electric field and potential in explanation of DC resistive circuits. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(1), Article 010128. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.010128

Malik, S. I., Tawafak, R. M., & Shakir, M. (2021). Aligning and assessing teaching approaches with SOLO taxonomy in a computer programming course. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 17(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.20211001.oa5

Maloney, D. P., O’Kuma, T. L., Hieggelke, C. J., & Van Heuvelen, A. (2001). Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism. American Journal of Physics, 69(S1), S12–S23. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1371296

Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2), 177–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00132516

Mi, S., Ye, J., Yan, L., & Bi, H. (2023). Development and validation of a conceptual survey instrument to evaluate senior high school students’ understanding of electrostatics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 19(1), Article 010114. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.010114

Moynihan, R. (2018). Developing and assessing student’s conceptual understanding of electrostatics in upper secondary physics [Doctoral dissertation, Dublin City University]. DORAS. https://doras.dcu.ie/22504/

Mulbar, U., Rahman, A., & Ahmar, A. (2017). Analysis of the ability in mathematical problem-solving based on SOLO taxonomy and cognitive style. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 15(1), 68–73. https://wiete.com.au/journals/WTE&TE/Pages/index.html

Page, A. (2022). Using online tools to develop higher order learning among tertiary students. Online Learning, 26(3), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i3.2667

Pashaei, M. (2025). The impact of active learning based on poetry recitation, picture reading, and drama on the speaking skills of fourth-grade elementary students. Iranian Journal of Learning and Memory, 8(30), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.22034/iepa.2026.558494.1552

Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199

Prosser, M. (1994). A phenomenographic study of students' intuitive and conceptual understanding of certain electrical phenomena. Instructional Science, 22(3), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00892242

Redish, E. F. (2003). Teaching physics with the physics suite. John Wiley & Sons.

Taşkın, T., & Yavaş, P. Ü. (2021). Examining knowledge levels of high school students related to conductors at electrostatic equilibrium and electric field lines using the drawing method. Research in Science Education, 51(2), 577–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9808-6

Tian, P., Fan, Y., Sun, D., & Li, Y. (2024). Evaluating students’ computation skills in learning amount of substance based on SOLO taxonomy in secondary schools. International Journal of Science Education, 46(11), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2291691

Williams, C., Stanisstreet, M., Spall, K., Boyes, E., & Dickson, D. (2003). Why aren't secondary students interested in physics? Physics Education, 38(4), 324–329. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/38/4/306

Iranian Journal of Learning and Memory
Volume 9, Issue 34
Spring 2026
Pages 119-141

Home

Editorial Board

Submit Manuscript

Contact Us