Developing Conceptual Understanding Of Fundamental Physical Constants: A Framework For Student Competencies

Authors

  • Xamidov Botirjon Xusnidinovich Basic doctoral student at Navoi state university, Uzbekistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37547/pedagogics-crjp-07-02-19

Keywords:

Physical constants, conceptual understanding, student competencies

Abstract

Fundamental physical constants embody empirical regularities, anchor measurement systems, and permit predictive modeling in mechanics, quantum physics, and cosmology, making them unique in scientific teaching. They are often taught as static numbers to memorize and put into formulae, which can lead to shallow procedural fluency without conceptual comprehension. An empirically supported competency-oriented approach for building students' conceptual comprehension of fundamental physical constants is proposed in this article. The framework presents constants as structured notions with operational definitions related to measurement, dimensions to representations, epistemic status to theory and evidence, and modeling roles to invariance and scaling. We incorporated constant-centered learning sequences into lectures, problem solving, and lab work in basic university physics using a design-based research method, stressing dimensional reasoning, uncertainty, historical-instrumental settings, and computer modeling. Mixed evidence from pre/post assessments, written explanations, and semi-structured interviews suggests that students can view constants as constraints that connect models to the world, delimit regimes of validity, and support coherent reasoning about units, scales, and approximations. Results suggest arranging education around a few transferable competencies: representational fluency, metrological reasoning, epistemic interpretation, and model-based application. In conclusion, the author suggests curriculum design that aligns with present SI concepts and assessment tasks that evaluate conceptual progress rather than formula memory.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Mohr P. J., Newell D. B., Taylor B. N. CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2014 // Reviews of Modern Physics. 2016. Vol. 88, № 3. P. 035009. DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.88.035009.

Mohr P. J., Newell D. B., Taylor B. N. CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2018 // Reviews of Modern Physics. 2021. Vol. 93, № 2. P. 025010. DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.025010.

Quinn T. J. From artefacts to atoms: the BIPM and the search for ultimate measurement standards // Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. 304 p.

Milton M. J. T., Williams J. M., Forbes A. B. The international system of units (SI) and the fundamental constants // Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. 2014. Vol. 372, № 2026. P. 20140038. DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0038.

Stock M., Davis R., de Mirandés E., Milton M. The revision of the SI—fundamental constants and the future of the kilogram // Metrologia. 2019. Vol. 56, № 2. P. 022001. DOI: 10.1088/1681-7575/ab05d5.

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. The International System of Units (SI): 9th edition // Sèvres: BIPM, 2019. 216 p. URL: https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure (accessed: 18.12.2025).

NIST. Fundamental Physical Constants (online reference data) // National Institute of Standards and Technology. URL: https://physics.nist.gov/constants (accessed: 18.12.2025).

Redish E. F. Teaching physics with the physics suite // Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2003. 216 p.

McDermott L. C., Shaffer P. S. Tutorials in introductory physics // Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2002. 274 p.

Hestenes D., Wells M., Swackhamer G. Force Concept Inventory // The Physics Teacher. 1992. Vol. 30, № 3. P. 141–158. DOI: 10.1119/1.2343497.

diSessa A. A. Knowledge in pieces // In: Constructivism in the Computer Age / Ed. G. Forman, P. B. Pufall. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988. P. 49–70.

Chi M. T. H. Three types of conceptual change: belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift // In: Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change / Ed. S. Vosniadou. New York: Routledge, 2008. P. 61–82.

Hammer D. Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics // Cognition and Instruction. 1994. Vol. 12, № 2. P. 151–183. DOI: 10.1207/s1532690xci1202_4.

Brewe E. Modeling instruction: a contemporary approach to physics teacher education // In: Reviews in PER: Research-Based Reform of University Physics / Ed. E. F. Redish, P. J. Cooney. College Park: AAPT, 2007. P. 1–48.

Hake R. R. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data // American Journal of Physics. 1998. Vol. 66, № 1. P. 64–74. DOI: 10.1119/1.18809.

Duit R., Treagust D. F. Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning // International Journal of Science Education. 2003. Vol. 25, № 6. P. 671–688. DOI: 10.1080/09500690305016.

Halliday D., Resnick R., Walker J. Fundamentals of Physics. 10th ed. // Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2014. 1392 p.

Tipler P. A., Mosca G. Physics for Scientists and Engineers. 6th ed. // New York: W. H. Freeman, 2007. 1480 p.

Feynman R. P., Leighton R. B., Sands M. The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Vol. I–III // Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1964. 1560 p.

Maxwell J. C. A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism. Vol. 1–2 // Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1873. 999 p.

Downloads

Published

2026-02-11

How to Cite

Xamidov Botirjon Xusnidinovich. (2026). Developing Conceptual Understanding Of Fundamental Physical Constants: A Framework For Student Competencies. Current Research Journal of Pedagogics, 7(02), 82–87. https://doi.org/10.37547/pedagogics-crjp-07-02-19