Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

DOI 10.1007/s11165-007-9061-x

Three Conceptions of Thermodynamics: Technical

Matrices in Science and Engineering
Frederik V. Christiansen Camilla Rump

Published online: 13 October 2007

Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract Introductory thermodynamics is a topic which is covered in a wide variety

of science and engineering educations. However, very different teaching traditions
have evolved within different scientific specialties. In this study we examine three
courses in introductory thermodynamics within three different scientific specialties:
physics, chemical engineering and mechanical engineering. Based on a generalization
of Kuhns theory of disciplinary matrix, and the idea of boundary objects we analyse
how basic thermodynamics theory is conceived in the different scientific specialties.
The study is based on interviews with teachers and analysis of the different textbook
traditions. It is concluded that teachers need to take into account how subject
matter is conceived in other related scientific specialties when designing courses. Two
examples demonstrating how this may be done are given.
Keywords Thermodynamics Physical chemistry Engineering thermodynamics
Disciplinary matrix Problem of transfer

Many, if not most, science and engineering programmes have an educational

structure which may be described as a stem and branch-structure. At stem level students are introduced to a range of basic science subjects (typically math, physics and
chemistry), and only encounter the scientific specialty of their choice (the branches)
after a relatively long time typically 12 years. Many different justifications both
ideological and pragmatic can be, and often are, given for this structure.

F. V. Christiansen (B)
Department for Medicinal Chemistry, Faculty of the Pharmaceutical Sciences,
University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 2, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
e-mail: fvc@farma.ku.dk
C. Rump
Department for Science Education, University of Copenhagen,
Universitetsparken 15, building 12, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
e-mail: cr@ind.ku.dk

546

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

Whatever the justifications might be, it is clear that the structure is not unproblematic from a learning perspective. Teachers at introductory courses at the branch
level often experience that large groups of students can not apply the fundamental
relations they were supposed to have learned at the stem level in spite of the fact
that they have passed the exams (Rump et al. 1998). Many explanations can be given
for this phenomenon:

The basic science teaching has not been good or effective enough (Loverude
et al. 2002; McDermott and Redish 1999).
The students are lazy or do not have the intellectual prerequisites or both.
The issue of the increasing diversity of students and their reaction to university
teaching is a major issue of discussion see e.g. Prosser and Trigwell (1999),
Biggs (1999).
The subject-matter abundance has prevented the students from understanding
the fundamentals (Prosser and Trigwell 1999).
Assessment is a prime vehicle for controlling student behavior and learning, and
dominant forms of assessment direct students in the wrong direction, as discussed
by Biggs (1999).

Each of these explanations may have degrees of truth to them when considering
a specific case. In this study we shall consider a different factor contributing to the
problem. Suppose a situation where the students have learned everything that they
have been taught at stem level. Moreover, the teachers at branch level have studied
the syllabi of the stem level courses, and agreed that the material is indeed relevant.
We claim that, even in this situation, the students may very well fail to apply their
knowledge in the new context.
We shall argue that there are important differences in the epistemological frameworks in which the subject-matter is embedded at stem and branch levels which make
it difficult to apply the methods and tools acquired outside the context in which they
were adopted.
To give an example, take the operation of differentiation as it is often presented
in secondary education. The concept is encountered in two different situations: In
the maths class and in the physics class. In maths, you are introduced to a function
f (x) and its derivative f  (x), in physics you are met with the differential notation dy
.
dx
Operations are allowed and encouraged in physics, which are regarded with suspicion
in mathematics (e.g., multiplying by dx on both sides of an equation). Furthermore,
the connotations of the concept in math and physics contexts are very different:
What gives meaning to the operation in physics is considering relations between
physical concepts such as time, position, velocity and acceleration, and differentiation
provides a binding link between these different physical concepts. In mathematics
differentiation is presented as an general operation relating two abstract functions
with certain properties. Emphasis is laid on the conditions and rules of the game.
Physical concepts are rarely mentioned, if at all. It is not strange that many fail to see
the connections when changing from the maths to the physics context.
Somewhat to our surprise there is little or no literature which specifically address
the issue of conceptual difficulties due to transition problems from stem level
to branch level. The literature on teaching and learning thermodynamics almost
exclusively address difficulties in learning concepts within one of the specialties,

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

547

physical chemistry, engineering thermodynamics, and thermal physics, with far the
most studies within physics (Loverude et al. 2002; McDermott and Redish 1999).

Aim and Method

The aim of the present study is to compare and discuss three neighboring teaching
traditions for thermodynamics teaching on the basis of a Kuhnian theoretical framework, with a specific focus on the teachers conceptions of subject-matter. By teachers
conceptions we are not referring to the teachers as individuals, but as representatives
of a scientific specialty. We will discuss the educational implications of the findings,
and suggest ways to address the educational problems considered. In the following
we will outline some of the methodological considerations behind the study.
Our focus is on tertiary introductory thermodynamics teaching. Specifically, we
will analyse three different introductory thermodynamics courses held by different
scientific groupings (and departments) at the Technical University of Denmark.
The three courses we are considering are given by physicists (Thermodynamics),
chemical engineers (Physical Chemistry) and mechanical engineers (Engineering
thermodynamics), respectively.
The courses are held for different kinds of engineering students. Physical Chemistry and Thermodynamics are both courses on stem level, whereas the mechanical
engineering course is at branch level.
Thermodynamics as Boundary Object
Differentiation is an operation which plays an important part in both physics and
mathematics. But even though there is a common understanding of the concept
which allows mathematicians and physicist to agree they are indeed using the same
concept, quite different working understandings of the concept exist in mathematics
and physics. Our idea is to examine whether the same can be said of the introductory
thermodynamics elements appearing in the different courses. Star and Griesemer
have described such elements as boundary objects:
This is an analytic concept of those scientific objects which both inhabit several
intersecting social worlds [. . . ] and satisfy the informational requirements of
each of them. Boundary objects are objects which are both plastic enough to
adapt to local needs and the constraints of the several parties employing them,
yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly
structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual site
use. These objects may be abstract or concrete. They have different meanings in
different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one
world to make them recognisable, a means of translation. (Star and Griesemer
1989)
The basic elements of thermodynamic theory, for instance the first law of thermodynamics, certainly inhabits several social worlds and is plastic enough to adapt to the
local needs. The elements also serve as means of communication across community
boundaries, for instance in curriculum descriptions. We therefore hypothesised that
the First Law of Thermodynamics and immediately related material can be seen as

548

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

constituting such boundary objects, which are weakly structured in communication

efforts across different scientific specialties and strongly structured within each
specialty.
Thus, the focus of our analysis has been elements which recur in several scientific
specialties and how these concepts and models are understood within the different
specialties such concepts as the laws of thermodynamics, heat, work, internal
energy, power cycles etc. Focusing on the recurring elements in different teaching
traditions is of course in some ways a limitation. Some concepts which are given
heavy weight in one tradition are given only scant treatment (if mentioned at all)
in the other traditions. This, for instance, is the case for such crucial concepts
as the chemical potential used in physical chemistry, and exergy or availability
used in mechanical engineering. Such concepts, it might be argued, constitute the
most fundamental difference between the way thermodynamics is conceived in the
different traditions. This is probably true, but from the educational perspective these
concepts are less likely to cause confusion for the students precisely because they
are unique to a specific tradition. What is interesting about the common elements is
that the same words are used to designate quite different meanings. Thus, a potential
for a problem of transfer arises (Royer et al. 2005).
Conceptualising Differences: Technical Matrices
In order to conceptualise in which way the understanding of common elements in
the specialties differ, we will follow the basic line of thought presented in (Hendricks
et al. 2000). In this article it is argued, that the idea of the disciplinary matrix
described by Kuhn (1970) in Postscript to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions can
be generalised, so that not only physics, but also applied sciences and engineering
sciences may be accounted for. Because of this extension of scope, Hendricks et
al. have relabeled the collection of elements a technical matrix. The elements
of a technical matrix are delimitation of objects, methods, values, theory structure,
exemplars, epistemic and ontological assumptions, and experimental structure. Thus,
what we have looked for when analyzing our material of the three traditions has been
differences in delimitation of objects, in methods (or, more precisely, methodologies), in values etc. In our analysis, the first four elements are discussed separately.
Discussions of epistemic and ontological assumptions and exemplars are included
in the discussions under values and theory structure. The only element described by
Hendricks et al. on which our analysis shall have no bearing is experimental structure.
The reason for this is that none of the courses considered include laboratory work,
and that the textbooks are not experimentally oriented.
Analysing Teachers Conceptions of Subject Matter
As described the focus of our study is teachers conceptions of disciplinary subject
matter, but we will have to elaborate a little bit on what we mean by the term subject
matter in this context, and how conceptions of subject matter may be analysed.
In the theory of didactic transpositions (an influential theory in the didactics of
mathematics) Chevellard (1985) has emphasized the difference and relationship between scientific knowledge, school knowledge and taught knowledge. The different

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

549

types of knowledge are related, but not (typically far from) identical. According
to Chevellard, scientific knowledge is transposed into school knowledge in what is
termed the external didactic transposition. School knowledge is typically represented
in curriculum descriptions, teaching manuals, standard textbooks etc. The taught
knowledge in its turn is a transposition of the official school knowledge the
teacher decides upon a specific way to fulfill curriculum objectives etc. This is what
Chevellard terms the internal didactic transposition.
Likewise, in our case. The teachers conceptions of thermodynamics pertains in
part to their understanding of thermodynamics as a part of their research field, in part
from their knowledge of (more or less) official ways of organising thermodynamics
curriculum, and in part from their experience teaching the subject. By teachers
conceptions of thermodynamics we mean knowledge of all these levels, as well as
knowledge of the external and internal didactic transpositions within their specialty.
That is what we mean by teachers conceptions of subject matter.
Concerning the more general question of how teachers conceptions of thermodynamics may be analysed, a few methodological remarks follow.
Kuhns theory represents a general structuralist framework, and our study is in
continuation of that approach. The paradigm theory postulates the existence of
certain general structures in the organisation of science (e.g., paradigms, normal
science, anomalies etc.), and Kuhns subsequent idea of a disciplinary matrix describes general knowledge structures in scientific communities (Kuhn 1970). These
structures are constitutive and regulative of the scientific practices within the communities. Kuhns approach was mainly historical and sociological, perhaps because
his main interest were in the dynamics of science. But since the postulated structures
permeate the scientific communities as such, the structures should be discernible at
many levels of investigation, and many other types of investigations (for instance
ethnographic studies of contemporary science) could be undertaken with focus on
the same structures.
Similarly, our endeavor is to understand teachers conceptions of thermodynamics
in three different teaching traditions, by discerning the general structures common to
the traditions. It is clear that many different sources of information can be considered
for analyses of teaching traditions and teachers conceptions of subject matter for
instance class room analyses of teaching, student problems solving, teachers communication with each other, textbook analysis, teachers problem solving, interviews
with teachers, interviews with students etc. Each of these approaches will no doubt
shed light upon the specifics of the teaching traditions in question. Obviously, a
variety of sources pointing in the same direction will strengthen the validity of the
findings. For this reason we have chosen two different sources of information for our
small study: The analysis of the used textbooks on the one hand, and interviews with
teachers from the different courses on the other.
We have chosen to focus on the textbook traditions because in science and
engineering (unlike, say, philosophy) education is largely based upon textbook
presentations of subject-matter, particularly at introductory levels. Thus, textbooks
reflect what we previously termed the school knowledge; an official codified representation of the knowledge to be taught. The choice of textbook for a course in
thermodynamics typically reflects a consensus among teachers within the community
that the specific book represents the subject matter in a good way for the particular
group of students. It is unlikely that a textbook is chosen if the involved teachers feel

550

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

that it grossly misrepresents the scientific knowledge of the specialty or omits crucial
aspects of relevance. Thus, the presentation given in popular textbooks represent in
a very concrete manner the result of a generally accepted external didactic transposition within that specialty. However, while the analysis of textbook traditions will
tell us something about school knowledge, it will not tell us much about the taught
knowledge, or the internal didactic transpositions. Thus, in addition to analysing the
textbooks, we have made interviews with teachers from each of the different courses.
The interviews were semi-structured and based on our reading of the textbooks in
the light of the technical matrix framework (focus on values, exemplars etc). The
teachers conceptions of what is important for students to understand, and what
they emphasise in their teaching provides us with an insight into specific internal
didactic transpositions of thermodynamic knowledge within each specialty. Although
this insight is of course specific for the interviewed teachers and the specific course,
general knowledge of the teaching traditions within the specialties may be obtained
by considering the accordance between the textbook presentations of subject matter
and the teachers priorities in their teaching. Thus, if a view presented in an interview
is in general accord with the presentation given in the textbook tradition, we have
considered it likely that the view is generally accepted within that teaching tradition.
In this way, the analysis of textbooks and the interviews mutually support each other
in informing our understanding of the teaching traditions in the three specialties, and
strengthens the reliability of the results.
As a further note on the reliability of the study, the interviewed teachers have
accepted our analysis of textbook traditions and the presentation of the interviews
given in the article. However, it should be noted that this study is not an empirical
study in the sense that it sets out to test a falsifiable hypothesis. Rather, we present
a theoretical perspective on teaching traditions and their relation to experienced
student problems, drawing on empirical material for illumination.

Three Textbook Traditions for Basic Thermodynamics Teaching

Before we start the analysis proper, we will make a brief outline of the textbook
traditions in the different scientific specialties.
The three varieties of introductory thermodynamics teaching in physics, physical
chemistry and mechanical engineering all have fairly long and, since the middle of
the 20th century, fairly independent traditions. Before this time several textbooks
were addressing all or several of the specialties.1
From an overall perspective, it may be said that there are two different styles for
thermodynamics textbook writing, irrespective of which specialty we are referring to.
One style, which we will call Euclidian, roughly presents thermodynamics as a set
of interconnected axioms and is generally deductive in its approach. For instance,
Guggenheim emphasises the logical formulation of the fundamental principles
(Guggenheim 1967, p. v), while Callen employs a postulatory formulation of thermodynamics (Callen 1985, p. 3).

1 Thus,

for instance, Zemanskys book addressed students of physics, chemistry and engineering,
while Guggenheim addresses physicist and chemists (Zemansky 1957; Guggenheim 1967).

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

551

The other style, which we will call Babylonian, is less focused on axioms, but gives
more emphasis to useful models and systems. Babylonian textbooks are descriptive
in their approach and discuss many phenomena and systems which either have
played significant roles in the historical development of thermodynamics or wherein
the systems considered can be seen as exemplary applications of thermodynamical
theory.
The distinction between Euclidian and Babylonian conceptions of theory is inspired by (Feynman 1967, p. 46), and refers to the Euclidian and Babylonian schools
of mathematics. Roughly, Babylonian mathematics (practised in Mesopotamia
approximately 2000600 BC) was characterised by its focus on solving specific
practical problems mathematically (for instance concerning irrigation systems).
Often such problem solving relied on tables and approximations rather than proof.
In contrast, Euclidian mathematics took as its starting point very general mathematical axioms definitions of points, lines etc. By means of these definitions specific
theorems are proved deductively. In Euclidian mathematics there is no reference to
the specific practical problems which could be solved. Thus, Euclidian mathematics
is focused entirely upon the logical relations between mathematical axioms, whereas
Babylonian mathematics is focused on the application of mathematics for practical
problem solving.
The distinction between Euclidian and Babylonian styles is quite rough, and
intermediate positions can be found. Still, most textbooks can easily be seen to fall in
one of the two categories.
In the following we will frame the textbooks used in the courses we are considering
within the textbook traditions of the different specialties that is, we will relate
the textbooks used in the courses to our analytic distinction between Euclidian and
Babylonian textbooks and explain the relation of the used textbooks to the tradition
developed in the different specialties.

Thermodynamics Textbooks in Physics

As a good example of a book in the Euclidian style, H. B. Callens widespread
book Thermodynamics (originally from 1960) could be mentioned (Callen 1985).
The standard fat introductory university physics textbooks follow the Babylonian
style in their (often very brief) treatment of thermodynamics (e.g., Ohanian 1985;
Young and Freedman 2003), as do some more advanced textbooks (e.g., Baierlein
1999). More advanced books typically treat statistical thermodynamics in addition to
classical thermodynamics. In the basic thermodynamics course we studied, followed
by most engineering students at the Technical University, a Danish book is used,
which is clearly written in the Babylonian style (Both and Christiansen 2002). This is
reflected in the very first paragraph of the book used in the course we are considering:
Thermodynamics is the scientific discipline describing energy and energy transformations. The foundation of thermodynamics is four laws, 0th, 1st, 2nd,
3rd law. These laws are postulates. The laws cannot be proved, but they
are posited as natural laws on the basis of experience. Thermodynamics can
be presented in a strict mathematical way, when the four laws are considered as axioms, from which a coherent theory is developed, see for instance
H. B. Callen: Thermodynamics. In this book we will, in contrast to this, present

552

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

thermodynamics in a more descriptive way and relate it to familiar phenomena.2

(Both and Christiansen 2002, p. 11)
It is interesting to note, that the book starts by pointing out a more systematic way
of presenting the subject-matter. This shows, arguably, that the Euclidian approach
plays an important role in physics. It is our view, that the main reason that most
introductory textbooks in physics are Babylonian is that these are generally more
pedagogical in virtue of their overall inductive approach. Although it is hard to verify,
it is our impression that in much physics education Babylonian thermodynamics
textbooks are used at undergraduate levels, whereas more Euclidian books are used
at graduate levels.
Textbooks in Physical Chemistry
The picture is a bit clearer for the case of Physical Chemistry. In 1950, the first edition
of Moores classic Physical Chemistry appeared (Moore 1972), and this book (with
its subsequent editions) became the prototype for introductory textbooks within the
field. This book is clearly Babylonian in its approach: Phenomenologically oriented
with focus on the chemically relevant elements of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics and quantum physics. As regards the exposition of thermodynamics it is
stated that:
Instead of trying to achieve a completely logical presentation of the subject, we
shall follow quite closely the historical development of the subject, since more
knowledge can be gained by watching the construction of something than by
inspecting the polished final product. (Moore 1972, p. 2)
In recent years a host of Physical Chemistry books have appeared3 which all basically
retain the approach and content of Moores book. In fact, it is not unfair to say
that Babylonian Physical Chemistry books are in total dominance on the market,
while more Euclidian textbooks (e.g., Guggenheim 1967) have gradually lost ground.
The course we studied used Laidler et al. (2003), a book clearly following Moores
approach.
Textbooks in Engineering Thermodynamics
In engineering thermodynamics, the introductory textbook which has shaped the
field most is probably the book Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics
(Reynolds and Perkins 1977). However, several previous books had already laid the
ground for the approach (Keenan 1941; Shapiro 1953; Mooney 1953; Reynolds 1968).
Its overall approach is Babylonian rather than Euclidian, and as is the case with
Moores book in Physical Chemistry, this book in particular has set the standard for
a number of subsequent textbooks, for instance (Moran and Shapiro 1998; Jones and
Dugan 1996). The engineering thermodynamics course we have looked at used the
textbook Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics (Moran and Shapiro 1998).

2 Our

translation of the Danish text.

3 Some

of the most influential are Atkins (1994), Levine (1995) and Laidler et al. (2003).

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

553

Development of Distinct Traditions

We conclude that the only tradition in which the Euclidian presentation of subject
matter still plays a prominent role is in physics. However, even in physics the
Babylonian approach is dominant at introductory level.
In addition to this development the three traditions have moved in different
directions, so that today it is the exception rather than the norm to find books that
specifically address two or more of the three specialties.
It is striking that even though the number of textbooks within each of the
traditions has grown tremendously over the last decades, there is in many ways
less diversity today with respect to approaches and general layout of the subject
matter than 50 years ago. There are a lot of Physical Chemistry books, a lot of
Engineering Thermodynamics books, and a lot of University Physics books. But
within each tradition the books are surprisingly similar to each other. This is a reason
to consider the teaching traditions as relatively independent of each other, but each
being relatively homogenous.

Technical Matrices in the Specialties

In the following we will analyse the textbooks and interviews with respect to the
elements in the technical matrices.

Differences in Delimitation of Objects

The textbooks are quite specific on what kinds of systems are (mainly) considered in
the presentation. The physics textbook states this clearly in the introduction:
In this book we consider almost exclusively systems with constant mass, for
instance gas in a cylinder supplied with a piston. (Both and Christiansen 2002,
p. 12)
That is, almost only systems where there is no flow of mass in and out of the system
are considered. This is in accord with the systems considered in the book on physical
chemistry however, with the modification that one particular type of closed system
are given special emphasis in the treatment:
In most chemical systems we are concerned with processes occurring in open
vessels, which means that they occur at constant pressure rather than at constant
volume. (Laidler et al. 2003, p. 59)
This special emphasis on open vessels is seen among other places in the treatment
of the concept of enthalpy, which is a crucial concept for the treatment of constant
pressure systems. In the Physical Chemistry text the applications of enthalpy considerations are developed and expanded upon over 30 pages (under the heading
Thermochemistry), whereas the concept is discussed only very briefly in the physics
textbook.

554

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

Table 1 Objects of study

Thermodynamics
Physical Chemistry

Physicists
Chemical Engineers

Closed systems
Open Vessels

Engineering Thermodynamics

Mechanical Engineers

Closed and open systems

CM
CM, constant
pressure
CM and CV

In contrast to the two other textbook presentations, the engineering thermodynamics textbook does not confine itself to the investigation of closed systems:
The scientist is normally interested in gaining a fundamental understanding
of the physical and chemical behavior of fixed, quiescent quantities of matter
and uses the principles of thermodynamics to relate the properties of matter.
Engineers are generally interested in studying systems and how they interact
with their surroundings. To facilitate this, engineers extend the subject of
thermodynamics to the study of systems through which matter flows. (Moran
and Shapiro 1998, p. 1)
Thus, in engineering thermodynamics also open systems, or control volumes (CV),
are considered in addition to the closed systems, or control masses (CM).4 In Table 1
the different kinds of objects of study in the different thermodynamic traditions are
summarised.
But how do these differences in the kinds of systems considered express themselves with respect to the basic understanding of the theory? In the interviews,
the subjects were asked to express what the first law of thermodynamics says, in
words and symbolically, and give examples of systems which describe its use. All
the interviewed subjects used the same overall expression to designate the First Law
of Thermodynamics: The principle of conservation of energy. The physicist and the
chemical engineer were in general agreement on an elaboration of the meaning of
this principle: When you consider a closed system the change in internal energy is
equal to the transferred heat and work (U = q + w). The mechanical engineer, on
the other hand, starts by saying, that you have to distinguish between control mass
and control volume systems. While for control mass systems, there is a relation as just
mentioned, for control volume systems there is a more complex relation between
change in the total energy per time of the control volume and the heat (QCV ) and
work (WCV ) which is transferred in or out of the control volume and the enthalpy
(h), kinetic energy (KE) and potential energy (PE) of the mass entering and leaving
the control volume:
dECV
CV + W
CV + m
i (hi + KEi + PEi )
=Q
dt
e (he + KEe + PEe )
m

4 The

(1)

terminology of control mass/volume is standard in mechanical engineering, and is of German

origin. Vincenti points out, that the German word Kontroll means auditing (as in bookkeeping)
as well as regulation, and it is the former meaning in particular which is aimed at with the term
(Vincenti 1990, p. 284, n. 2).

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

555

Thus, the difference in the systems considered actually lead to quite different
conceptions of what is understood by default by the principle of conservation of
energy a difference which is also reflected in the textbooks.
In physical chemistry and engineering thermodynamics it is clear, that the delimitation of objects has to do with the kinds of systems typically encountered in
the practice of the two fields. In the physics tradition the picture is less clear. The
prototype system with a piston-fitted cylinder is certainly a useful system to describe
the workings of motors etc., but this system can hardly be said to describe systems
with which physicists normally work. Thus, it is most likely the exemplary value of
this system in describing fundamental relations, concepts and structures that have
made these systems the focus of attention in the physics tradition.
Differences in Methodologies
The differences in the systems considered lead to different methodologies, most
obvious perhaps between engineering thermodynamics and the two other traditions.
Specifically, the book on engineering thermodynamics relies heavily on so-called
control volume analysis. The methodology of control volume analysis, as a systematic
method, has a long history in engineering going back to the 1910s. It was developed
for the study of fluid mechanics problems5 a field which is also drawn upon in
engineering thermodynamics. The basic principle of control volume analysis is to
delineate a certain spatial region, and keep track of the momentum, mass, energy or
entropy rate balances crossing the volume. The chosen volume is normally marked
with a dotted line (as done in every figure in Moran and Shapiro 1998). Control
volume analysis provides a convenient way to gain insight into fundamental relations
between relevant parameters, without having to deal with the full complexity of what
goes on inside the system.
Choosing the right control volume is of crucial importance, as the choice of volume
often determines the difficulty (or even solvability) of the problem:
It is essential for the boundary to be delineated carefully before proceeding
with any thermodynamic analysis. However, since physical phenomena can
often be analysed in terms of alternative choices of the system boundary, and
surroundings, the choice of a particular boundary defining a particular system is
governed by the convenience it allows in the subsequent analysis. (Moran and
Shapiro 1998, p. 2)
This process of carefully delineating the boundary of the system makes little
sense if considering only control masses, or rather, it is self-evident: The boundary
simply coincides with the container. Therefore system delineation is not given weight
in Thermodynamics and in Physical Chemistry.
In Physical Chemistry the object of study is likewise reflected in specific methodologies. As mentioned earlier, the concept of enthalpy (change) plays a very important role in physical chemistry. This is due to the fact that enthalpy is a state function
of relevance to the open vessel systems normally considered. However, the potential

5 Vincenti has given a thorough description of the principles and history of the methodology (Vincenti

1990, Chapter 4).

556

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

of the concept comes into play only with other principles, concepts and methods such
as the stoichiometric principles, the concepts of standard states, extent of reaction,
and the methods of direct and indirect caliometry.
A standard state is defined as the state of the chemical substance at 1 bar (normally
at 25.00 C), and it possible to define a number of different standard enthalpy changes
for different physical transformations based on the notions of standard states and
enthalpy. Two examples are the standard enthalpy of formation ( f H ) and the
standard enthalpy of reaction (r H ). Standard enthalpies of formation have been
tabulated for a vast number of substances, and may be used to calculate standard
enthalpies of reaction for unknown reactions, given that all the reactants and
products  f H values are known. This method for calculating enthalpies of reaction
thus, in addition to the conservation of energy and fact that enthalpy is a state
function, relies on certain specific conventions (standard states) and stoichiometric
and caliometric knowledge.
Differences in Values
In the interviews made, subjects were asked to describe what they understood by
an engine. The physicist stated, that the engine was introduced as shown in Fig. 1a,
where you have a hot reservoir (at temperature Th ) and a cold reservoir (Tl ), and
some sort of contraption which receives heat from the warm reservoir and delivers
to the cold reservoir, while performing a work (W). The contraption may signify
different kinds of power cycles which may be represented in different ways, for
instance in a PV-diagram (Fig. 1b).

a An engine

b A hypothetical power cycle

Fig. 1 An engine and accompanying power cycle as presented by the physicist

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

557

This rather theoretical conception of what an engine is, stands in contrast to the
description given by the mechanical engineer:
. . . an engine could typically be a gas or steam turbine. . . and that means, that is, a
collection of components which operates a thermodynamical power cycle...The
mechanical components needed for a power cycle to take place in the real world.
Certainly, one should not place too much emphasis on such differences of understanding of a single concept, as the definitions is this way cannot be considered to be
exhaustive in any way, but it is worth noting that the mechanical engineer, in contrast
to the physicist, immediately focuses on the realisability of the engine. He continues:
. . . thats important, not least for mechanical engineers the physicists might
have a more abstract understanding. But. . . a lot of people have wanted to make
a Carnot engine, but the thing is, first making an isotherm and then an isentropic
compression. . . The compression decides for itself what it wants to be, and there
not a lot you can do to influence that.
In the respective following discussions the subjects were asked about what kinds of
power cycles were given emphasis in the courses. The physicist argued, that because
of the limited time available only the Carnot cycle is given a substantial treatment.
The reason is that the Carnot cycle has the highest efficiency of all power cycles, and:
It is on the basis of the Carnot engine that you, by arguments, derive the absolute
thermodynamical temperature. And entropy, for that matter.
Thus, special emphasis is laid on the Carnot cycle because it is particularly well
suited to illustrate aspects of the theoretical structure. The mechanical engineer
on the other hand lays little emphasis on the Carnot cycle, as indicated above.
What is considered important for the students to know about the Carnot cycle is
the efficiency. This is in accordance with the presentations given in the textbook
traditions. The mechanical engineer certainly appeared to be less interested in the
theoretical heuristics of the Carnot cycle, and the fact that it is not realizable places
it in a less central position than for the physicist. However, many other power cycles
are treated in the mechanical engineering course:
We consider in detail vapor power, gas turbines, motors, cooling devices plus
some more exotic stuff, right? And the existing possibilities for improvement,
because a vapor power system is not just a boiler, a turbine, a condenser and a
pump, is it? Theres also. . . we go through that you can extract steam to preheat
the feedwater, and you can divide the turbine into a high-pressure and a lowpressure turbine, and you can take out steam and regenerate it and thereby
improve the efficiency, and then you can calculate and see that it improves [. . . ]
Concepts such as superheating and subcooling for refrigeration systems, thats
something which isnt considered in the theoretical process, but in reality you
have to increase the temperature a little bit after the evaporator in order to be
sure there is no vapor in the refrigerant before it enters the compressor, because
otherwise it might [. . . ] be destroyed. [. . . ] They should know what a power plant
is, and a gas turbine and a motor and such things.

558

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

This quote shows clearly the emphasis on realisability in the mechanical engineering tradition something which is not an issue of the such importance in physics.
The chemical engineer held an intermediate position on this particular point,
arguing that from a pedagogical perspective it was important for the students, in
addition to understanding the Carnot cycle, to see examples of cycles that were
physically realisable.
Different power cycles are good examples of what Kuhn denoted exemplars.
It appears from this case that different importance is assigned to different power
cycles in the different communities, and different emphasis is placed on various
aspects of the individual exemplars. Specifically, it appears that emphasis is placed on
realisability of power cycles in mechanical engineering, while this is not considered
of great importance in physics.
Differences in Conception of Theory Structure
As mentioned, textbooks in university thermodynamics can roughly be described as
either Babylonian or Euclidian in style, but the Babylonian textbooks are dominant
in all three traditions. From a pedagogical perspective this is perhaps understandable,
as inductive approaches to teaching are better in terms of student learning than
deductive approaches. We have argued, however, that in physics the Euclidian
textbooks still play a prominent role, while this is infinitely less so in Physical Chemistry and Engineering Thermodynamics. Does this mark a fundamental difference
in the conceptions of thermodynamics held by physicists, chemical engineers and
mechanical engineers?
In our interview we asked the physicist about the difference between the three
teaching traditions, and what made the physicists tradition special. The answer was
that physicists like when it is:
. . . like in mechanics . . . we like to focus on the basics Newtons laws that is,
the thermodynamical laws and what is in the vicinity of them. Those who want
to apply it for something, are free to do so.
When asked if thermodynamics was to be conceived as a discipline distinct from
other physical disciplines, the answer was a decided yes:
Yes! It is the only one thats purely empirical...it is an empirical science which
doesnt presuppose anything about [the constitution of] matter. It presupposes
nothing! You have three laws, you have some matter that you may be able to
form an equation of state from you need that as well. The rest is formalism.
And you can connect the different properties by means of functions of multiple
variables, and maybe thats what a physicist will say: Thats beautiful.
What is expressed here is the view that thermodynamics is basically a system of
axioms with its own inner mathematical structure and distinct from other physical disciplines a clear expression of a Euclidian conception of theory structure. Moreover,
this very structure is what provides the theory with its beauty. Finally, it is considered
a value that the theory does not presuppose anything about the specific nature of
matter if it was found out that atoms and molecules did not exist, thermodynamics
would stand. This should not be taken as an ontological claim, rather as a kind of
ontological indifference, because when viewed from inside the theory, the question

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

559

of molecules is irrelevant. These views are challenged by both the chemical engineer
and the mechanical engineer. The chemical engineer argued strongly against those
people who would like to make thermodynamics into a completely elevated axiom,
without referring to molecules. This was not just a matter of taste or pedagogical
concern, but also a fundamental disagreement with the purely macroscopic view:
[. . . ] it is a fact that they [molecules] exist, and if systems are very small youd
get some fluctuations in pressure, for instance. When you say pressure, it means
molecular impact it is just that theres something like 1023 per second per cm3 ,
thats why we measure an average. [. . . ] It doesnt really make sense to say,
that we start by defining something called pressure. Sure, it can be done, but it
doesnt make sense, and the view collapses for very small systems in contrast to
the other view.
As for the exposition of the beauty of the inner mathematical structure of the
theory, this is not something which is given great weight in the course held by the
chemical engineers:
Really, it doesnt appeal to first year students and I dont think it should either,
and I think the basic position is wrong . . .
As for the view that thermodynamics is as a discipline distinct from other physical
disciplines, the mechanical engineer argues that there is no sharp distinction between
one discipline and another. When asked about the relationship between the principle
of conservation of energy and the conservation of mass, the physicist argued that the
question was irrelevant because for the systems considered in the course, no mass is
lost. The mechanical engineer says:
Well, thats the two conservation principles we use as soon as we have control
volumes. In the physicists world you dont need conservation of mass, because
you concentrate on control masses, but here we need to look at conservation of
mass because we have a number of equations which describes our system and
we need to know how much mass there is in the different sub-volumes we are
considering. So thats why we need an equation for conservation of mass, but in
principle its the same thing: A conservation principle, just for mass.
To the question of whether the principle of conservation of mass should be
conceived of as a mechanical principle rather than a thermodynamical principle, the
mechanical engineer responded:
Well, generally I dont really see it as separate things. There is this huge area
describing the sciences, and then you can make rough divisions, and say this
conglomeration is called thermodynamics and this is called mechanics and so
forth, and there are vast overlaps really a lot. So I dont think mechanics has
greater claim to it [conservation of mass] than thermodynamics.
What can be seen from this is that there is a relatively clear difference between
the conception of theory structure in physics and in the engineering traditions, and
that the difference between Babylonian and Euclidian writing styles goes beyond
the purely pedagogical concerns. In physics, the inner structure and consistency of
the thermodynamic theory is considered an intrinsic value of the theory. On the
other hand, the correspondence of theory to nature is of secondary importance (as

560

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

can be seen from the example with the Carnot engine). In chemical engineering
and mechanical engineering, the inner structure of the theory is considered of less
importance than the theorys ability describe empirical phenomena, be it machines
or molecular phenomena. Making a strong claim, different conceptions of truth are
involved in the different traditions. Consistency is stressed in physics, while correspondence is stressed in chemical and mechanical engineering. Unlike in physics, the
use of thermodynamics in chemical and mechanical engineering is a means to an end
the description of empirical phenomena. In physics, thermodynamic theory is (also)
an end in itself.

Discussion
Most studies of paradigms or epistemic cultures in science and engineering focus
mainly on the research and development efforts of the involved members of the scientific communities6 . In contrast, this study has focused on paradigmatic differences
which can be discerned by studying basic science teaching.
It is clear, that education plays a vital role in establishing the common knowledge
and assumptions held by a specific scientific (or engineering) community. As Kuhn
argues, the members of a scientific community have typically have absorbed the
same technical literature and drawn many of the same lessons from it (Kuhn
1970, p. 177). In science and engineering, the technical matrix of the specialty is
adopted by newcomers through education, and the ground for valued research
and development (as well as professional) competencies are laid in the students
education.
From the educational perspective, it is noteworthy that even such common
goods as introductory thermodynamics are framed so differently within the different
scientific teaching traditions. However, there is no reason to assume that the concepts
of thermodynamics are unique in this respect. Rather, this is a completely general
educational problem. Other examples, each of which would be worth studying, are
calculus in traditions of mathematics, physics and chemistry, statistics in mathematics, biology, engineering, logic in mathematics, computer science and philosophy.
Bucciarelli (2003) gives the examples of mechatronics in mechanical and electrical
engineering, and strength of materials in mechanical, civil, and aerospace engineering.
Bucciarelli notes that different varieties and versions of different sciences form the
core of different departments and these differences are defended when proposals
are made by Deans anxious to avoid duplication of effort and to lower costs of
delivery. The note about the anxious Deans is important, because it points to
an important feature of stem and branch structures: There are strong economical
incitements for establishing such structures. This is probably the primary reason such
structures are abundant. Given this, it becomes all the more important to be aware of
to which degree subject matter can be said to be the same across different traditions.
The use of the same concepts to describe subject matter in the different traditions
is by no means a guarantee of the identity of the meanings these concepts (and
the associated practices). This is particularly unfortunate with respect to education,

6 To

mention just a few of these see Kuhn (1970), Knorr Cetina (1999), Vincenti (1990) and Latour
(1988).

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

561

because a dominant way of communicating about content in education is by means

of syllabus descriptions descriptions which describe only the concepts not the
meanings and practices.
It is, seen in the light of the present study, not surprising that students often fail
to apply the knowledge they have learned at stem level when coming to the branch
level. This is because knowledge is embedded within an epistemic framework encompassing different goals, methods, values, exemplars and views of theory structure.
What the good student has learned to find important and useful in one context, may
be considered less important or even irrelevant in the next.
The differences in meanings of concepts between scientific specialties are rarely
explicitly addressed in teaching, perhaps because it is more the exception than the
rule that teachers have more than vague ideas about of the conceptions of the
neighboring specialties. This is an unfortunate consequence of the high degree of
specialization in science and engineering subjects. That means that it is often left
entirely to the students to deal with these problems. The problems experienced in
the educational system with respect to the transitions from stem to branch (and
elsewhere) shows that this situation is far from being ideal.
How should the problem be addressed? The most obvious reply is to try to
solve the problem by disposing of it. This may be done by removing the stem and
branch structures e.g., by letting mechanical engineers teach engineering thermodynamics for mechanical engineering students, and likewise in chemical engineering,
and physics. Depending on the specific financial and institutional structures, such
solutions may be possible. But in general they are probably not. The stem and branch
structure is there to stay. It is not there for a pedagogical reason, so it is unlikely that
it will be disposed of for pedagogical reasons.
From a normative perspective it can also be argued that the above solution
only solves the problem by not considering it. And the problem is actually worth
considering for most, if not all, students.
The ability to recognise that there are different possible perspectives on the same
subject matter lies, in our view, at the heart of being an academic. Moreover, there
are strong societal demands for students who are able to work in multidisciplinary
groups. In order to do this efficiently there is a need for understanding and respect
for different views on a matter.
When viewed from this perspective, the stem and branch structures may have an
important role to play namely, that of increasing student awareness that scientific
specialties are different from each other, not only in content, but also in adopted
methods, objects, values etc. But in order to fulfill this function, there is a need
for increased awareness among teachers of the approaches and understandings of
subject-matter adopted in nearby scientific fields of relevance for the students education. Moreover, such increased awareness must be made an issue in teaching. Such
metacognitive elements in the teaching would serve the double purpose of helping
the students to deal with transition problems and increasing their understanding of
the nature of multidisciplinary work.7
As to the question of how such increased awareness among teachers may come
about, we shall give two examples where slightly different approaches have been
used.
7A

good discussion of this can be found in Bucciarelli (1996).

562

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

The first example is an introductory calculus course at the University of Copenhagen. The course is aimed at students in chemistry, nano-science, bio-chemistry,
and physics. The course is planned and lectured by mathematicians, but the problemsolving classes are undertaken by teachers from the other specialties. The specialty
teachers may tone the problems and discusses the relevant applications of mathematics in the specialties. This is important, since one of the decisive factors in transfer
between one learning context (mathematics course) and another (specialty course)
is the degree of similarity of contexts (Royer et al. 2005). When students are led to
see the relevance and use of mathematics in their own specialty right from the
beginning, the odds are better that they will able to apply the mathematics in their
specialty later on.
The second example is an introductory physics course given at the Technical
University of Denmark (DTU), where the findings of this study were used as a basis
when the course underwent a major revision. The course covers Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics, and is compulsory to all students
at DTU. The teachers responsible for the course are all physicists and 90% of the
students are engineering students aiming at different engineering specialties, ranging
from software engineering to civil and mechanical engineering. Approximately 500
students follow the course which comprises lectures, problem-solving classes, selfstudy, and so-called in-depth modules. There are two potential transition problems
in this course. One is from high school physics to university physics, and one is from
the basic physics in the course to the applied physics in the specialties. The transition
problem from high school physics is facilitated by having experienced high school
teachers teach the problem-solving classes. The transition problem to the specialties
is facilitated by letting the students apply the basic physics concepts to (relatively)
authentic engineering problems in the in-depth modules. Here the students work in
pairs on an open problems over a period of two weeks, and deliver a report of their
result. An example of a project theme in thermodynamics is a heat pump, where
the students among other things get the opportunity to study engineering relevant
power cycles like the reversed Otto cycle and compare this with the Carnot cycle
or an opportunity to deal with open systems and control volume analysis.
Neither of the courses explicitly address the metacognitive of the differences
between the specialties, but the courses are recognitions of the existence of different
conceptions of subject matter, and we believe that students can benefit tremendously
by thus becoming aware of and getting experience with subject matter in a context of
relevance to the field they are studying.

Conclusion
We have argued how students difficulties in applying basic science concepts in
the applied specialties may be attributed to differences in teachers paradigmatic
conception of subject-matter. By adopting a comparative Kuhnian approach we have
analysed three different teaching traditions in thermodynamics. The study is based
on interviews with teachers and analysis of the different textbook traditions, and
points to differences in all elements of the technical matrices considered, including
differences in delimitation of objects, methods, values, ontological assumptions and
exemplars.

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

563

We conclude that educators should take into account how subject matter is
conceived in related scientific specialties when designing courses. We have given
examples of how this can be done either by organising multidisciplinary teaching,
or by letting the students work on open-ended problems relevant for the other
specialties.
As a final conclusion, we would like to stress the fruitfulness of the comparative Kuhnian approach to studying teaching traditions and conceptions of subject
matter not least because it allows for critical analysis of programme and course
design in higher education.

References
Atkins, P. W. (1994). Physical chemistry (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Baierlein, R. (1999). Thermal physics. Cambridge, UK: Press Syndicate of the University of
Cambridge.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham, UK: Society for Reaserch
into Higher Education.
Both, E., & Christiansen, G. (2002). Termodynamik (4th ed.). Lyngby, Denmark: Den private
Ingenirfond.
Bucciarelli, L. L. (1996). Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Bucciarelli, L. L. (2003). Designing and learning: A disjunction in contexts. Design Studies, 24(3),
295311.
Callen, H. B. (1985). Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Wiley (Revised edition of: Thermodynamics, 1960).
Chevellard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique. Du savoir savant au savoir enseign (The didactical transposition. From scientific knowledge to taught knowledge). Grenoble, France: La Pense
Sauvage.
Feynman, R. (1967). The character of physical law. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Guggenheim, E. A. (1967). Thermodynamics an advanced treatment for chemists and physicists (5th
revised ed.). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland. (First edition 1949).
Hendricks, V., Jakobsen, A., & Pedersen, S. (2000). Identification of matrices in science and engineering. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 31, 277305.
Jones, J. B., & Dugan, R. E. (1996). Engineering thermodynamics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Keenan, J. H. (1941). Thermodynamics. New York: Wiley.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Laidler, K., Meiser, J. H., & Sanctuary, B. C. (2003). Physical chemistry (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Latour, B. (1988). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Levine, I. N. (1995). Physical chemistry. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Loverude, M. E., Kautz, C. H., & Heron, P. R. L. (2002). Student understanding of the first law of
thermodynamics: Relating work to the adiabatic compression of an ideal gas. American Journal
of Physics, 70(2), 137148.
McDermott, L. C., & Redish, E. F. (1999). Resource letter: Per1: Physics education research.
American Journal of Physics, 67, 755767.
Mooney, D. A. (1953). Mechanical engineering thermodynamics. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Moore, W. J. (1972). Physical chemistry (5th ed.). London: Longman House. (First edition published
1950).
Moran, M. J., & Shapiro, H. N. (1998). Fundamentals of engineering thermodynamics (3rd ed.).
London: Wiley.
Ohanian, H. C. (1985). Physics (2nd expanded ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching. The experience in higher
education. Buckingham, UK: Society for Reaserch into Higher Education.
Reynolds, W. C. (1968). Thermodynamics (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

564

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:545564

Reynolds, W. C., & Perkins, H. C. (1977). Engineering thermodynamics (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math.
Royer, J. M., Mestre, J. P., & Defresne, R. J. (2005). Introduction: Framing the transfer problem. In
J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of leaning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. viixxvi).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Rump, C., Jakobsen, A., & Clemmensen, T. (1998). Improving conceptual understanding and using
qualitative tests. In C. Rust (Ed.), 6 improving student learning outcomes (pp. 298308). Oxford,
UK: Oxford Centre for Staff & Learning Development.
Shapiro, A. H. (1953). The dynamics and thermodynamics of compressible fluid flow (Vol. 1).
New York: Ronald Press.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects:
Amateurs and professionals in Berkeleys Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 190737. Social
Studies of Science, 19(3), 387420 (August).
Vincenti, W. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Young, H. D., & Freedman, R. A. (2003). Sears and Zemanskys university physics with modern
physics (11th ed.). San Francisco, CA (First edition by Sears and Zemansky, 1949).
Zemansky, M. W. (1957). Heat and thermodynamics an intermediate textbook for students of
physics, chemistry and engineering (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill (First edition 1937).