El Segundo Principio de la Termodinámica es conceptualmente complejo e históricamente multifacético, constituyendo un desafío significativo en la educación científica. Este artículo emplea el Triángulo de Johnstone—un modelo que distingue niveles de representación macroscópico, microscópico y simbólico— como marco pedagógico para relacionar las tres interpretaciones fundamentales del Segundo Principio: los límites de eficiencia macroscópica de Carnot, la entropía estadística de Boltzmann, y la axiomatización formal de Carathéodory. Al alinear estas formulaciones con los niveles de Johnstone, proponemos una estrategia educativa comprehensiva para fomentar la comprensión conceptual profunda en termodinámica.
The Second Thermodynamic Principle is conceptually complex and historically multifaceted, making it a challenge in science education. This paper employs Johnstone's Triangle—a model distinguishing macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic levels of representation—as a pedagogical framework to relate the three foundational interpretations of the Second Principle: Carnot's macroscopic efficiency limits, Boltzmann's statistical entropy, and Carathéodory's formal axiomatization. By aligning these formulations with Johnstone's levels, we propose a comprehensive educational strategy for fostering deep conceptual understanding in thermodynamics.
Referencias Bibliográficas
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305016
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x
Kesidou, S., & Duit, R. (1993). Students' conceptions of the Second Principle of thermodynamics—An interpretive study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300107
Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in Science Education (pp. 121–146). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3613-2_7
Leff, H. S. (2007). Entropy, its language, and interpretation. Foundations of Physics, 37(12), 1744–1766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-007-9163-3
Munfaridah, N., Avraamidou, L., & Goedhart, M. (2021). The use of multiple representations in undergraduate physics education: What do we know and where do we go from here? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9577
Munfaridah, N., Avraamidou, L., & Goedhart, M. (2022). Preservice physics teachers' development of physics identities: The role of multiple representations. Research in Science Education, 52, 1699–1715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10019-5
Styer, D. F. (2000). Insight into entropy. American Journal of Physics, 68(12), 1090–1096. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1287353
Talanquer, V. (2011a). Learning chemistry: A matter of change. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 629–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500691003613394
Talanquer, V. (2011b). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry "triplet". International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179– https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903386435
Viennot, L. (1998). Experimental facts and ways of reasoning in thermodynamics: Learners' common approach. International Journal of Science Education, 20(9), 1069–1087. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200905
Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional.