Advertisement

Examining Knowledge Levels of High School Students Related to Conductors at Electrostatic Equilibrium and Electric Field Lines Using the Drawing Method

  • Tuğba Taşkın
  • Pervin Ünlü Yavaş
Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate knowledge of high school students related to conductors at electrostatic equilibrium and electric field lines. The descriptive model was preferred in line with the purpose of the study. The sample of the study consisted of 35 11th grade students, 18 females and 16 males, who were enrolled in a state-owned high school in Turkey. The participants had previously learned the electric field lines in their courses. The research data was collected using a drawing scale consisting of three sections prepared by the researchers. The students then were asked to explain their drawings. Descriptive analysis was applied to the answers of the students. According to the findings obtained from the analysis, the most commonly reflected property of electric field lines was “electric field lines do not intersect,” while the least commonly reflected property was “electric field lines are drawn parallel to the surface.” Also, the students were observed to confuse the concept of the electric field with electric current, and electric field lines with magnetic field lines. In addition, it was found that the students did not understand the direction of the electric field and the vectorial nature of the electric field, and believed that electric field lines were real. The knowledge of the students was not based on scientific foundations.

Keywords

Electric field lines High school students 

Notes

References

  1. Acar, B., & Tarhan, L. (2008). Effects of cooperative learning on students’ understanding of metallic bonding. Research in Science Education, 38, 401–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akdeniz, A. R., Bektas, I., & Yigit, N. (2000). İlköğretim 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin temel fizik kavramlarını anlama düzeyi (Level of comprehension of basic physics concepts of 8th grade primary school students). Hacettepe University Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 19, 5–14.Google Scholar
  3. Ayas, A. (2006). Kavram öğrenimi, fen ve teknoloji öğretimi [Concept learning, science and technology teaching]. Ankara: Pegema Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Bak, Z., Ayas, A., & Devecioğlu, Y. (2005). Ogretmen adaylarinda isi ve sicaklikla ilgili kavram yanilgilarinin belirlenmesi (Determination of conceptual information about temperature and temperature in teacher candidates). XIV. Ulusal Egitim Bilimleri Kongresi, II, 197–202.Google Scholar
  5. Bilal, E., & Erol, M. (2009). Investigating students’ conceptions of some electricity concepts. Latin American Journal of Physics Education, 3(2), 193–201.Google Scholar
  6. Bohigas, X., & Periago, C. (2010). Modelos mentales alternativos de los alumnos de segundo curso de ingeniería sobre la Ley de Coulomb y el Campo Eléctrico [Alternative mental models of second-year engineering students of Coulomb’s law and the electric field]. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 12(1). Retrieved from http://redie.uabc.mx/vol12no1/contenido-bohigas.html. Accessed 27 Nov 2016.
  7. Bradamente F, Michelini M., & Stefanel A. (2007). Learning problems related to the concept of field. In: Proc. Int. Symp. on the Frontiers of Fundamental and Computational Physics. The Netherlands, Italy: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Chabay, R. W., & Sherwood, B. A. (2000). Matter & interactions II: Electric and magnetic interactions. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, A. K., & Kwen, B. H. (2005). Primary pupils’ conceptions about someaspect of electricity. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/98pap/ang98205.htlm. Accessed 13 Jul 2017.
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Duit, R. (1993). Research on student’s conceptions-developments and trends. Third International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  12. Duit, R., & Rhoneck, C. (1997). Learning and understanding key concepts of electricity. Retrieved from http//www.physics.ohio-state.edu/jossem/ICPE/C2MC.htlm. Accessed 20 Sept 2015.
  13. Dunn, J. W., & Barbanel, J. (2000). One model for an integrated math/physics course focusing on electricity and magnetism and related calculus topics. American Journal of Physics, 68, 749–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eylon, B. S., & Ganiel, U. (1990). Macro-micro relationships: the missing link between electrostatics and electrodynamics in students’ reasoning. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feymann, R., Leighton, R., & Sands, M. (2016). Feynman fizik dersleri (Feynman physics course). Istanbul: Alfa Puslishing.Google Scholar
  16. Furió, C., & Guisasola, J. (1998). Difficulties in learning the concept of electric field. Science Education, 82(4), 511–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Furió, C., Guisasola, J., & Zubimendi, J. L. (1998). Problemas hist’oricos y dificultades de aprendizaje en la interpretaci’on newtoniana de fen’omenos electrost’aticos considerados elementales [Historical problems and learning difficulties in the Newtonian interpretation of electrostatic phenomena considered elementary]. Investiga¸coes em Ensino de Ciˆencias, 3(3). Retrieved from http://www.if.ufrgs.br/public/ensino/vol3/n3/v3_n3_a2.htm. Accessed 13 Jul 2017.
  18. Furió, C., Guisasola, J., Almudí, J., & Ceberio, M. (2003). Learning the electric field concept as oriented research activity. Science Education, 87(5), 640–662.Google Scholar
  19. Garza, A., & Zabala, G. (2010). Electric field concept: effect of the context and the type of questions. Physics education research conference (pp. 145–148). Portland: AIP Conf. Proc..Google Scholar
  20. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: SagePublications.Google Scholar
  21. Guisasola, J. (1997). El trabajo cient’ıfico y las tareas en la electrost’atica en textos de Bachillerato [Scientific work and tasks in electrostatics in high school texts]. Alambique, 11, 45–54.Google Scholar
  22. Hekkenberg, A., Lemmer, M., & Dekkers, P. (2015). An analysis of teachers’ concept confusion concerning electric and magnetic fields. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(1), 34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hestenes, D. (1996). Modeling methodology for physics teachers. In Proceedings of the international conference on undergraduate physics education. College Park. Retrieved from http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/ModelingMeth-jul98.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2008.
  24. Hestenes, D., & Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test. The Physics Teacher, 30, 159–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kesonen, M. H. P., Asikainen, M. A., & Hirvonen, P. E. (2011). University students’ conceptions of the electric and magnetic fields and their interrelationships. European Journal of Physics, 32(2), 521–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koch, T. (2006). Establishing rigour in qualitative research: the decision trail. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(1), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kose, S. (2008). Diagnosing student misconceptions: using drawings as a research method. World Applied Sciences Journal, 3, 283–293.Google Scholar
  28. 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 Physcis, 69(S1), S12–S23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martín, J., & Solbes, J. D. (2001). Diseño y Evaluación de una propuesta para la enseñanza del concepto campo en física [Design and evaluation of a proposal for teaching the concept of field in physics]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 19(3), 393–403.Google Scholar
  30. Melo-Niño, L., Cañada, F., & Mellado, V. (2017). Initial characterization of Colombian high school physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge on electric fields. Research in Science Education, 47(1), 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thou-sand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Nguyen, N. L., & Meltzer, D. E. (2003). Initial understanding of vector concepts among students in introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 71, 630–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Osbeck, L. M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2006). The distribution of representation. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 36(2), 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ozay, E., & Oztas, H. (2003). Secondary students’ interpretations of photosynthesis and plant nutrition. Journal of Biological Education, 37, 68–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Planinic, M. (2006). Assessment of difficulties of some conceptual areas from electricity and magnetism using the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism. American Journal of Physics, 74, 1143–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pocovi, M. C. (2007). The effects of a history-based instructional material on the students’ understanding of field lines. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 107–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pocovi, M. C., & Finley, F. (2003). Historical evolution of the field view and textbook accounts. Science Education, 12, 387–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Povoci, M. C., & Finley, F. (2002). Lines of force: Faraday’s and students’ views. Science Education, 11, 459–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Povoci, M. C., & Finley, F. (2007). The effects of a history-based instructionalmaterial on the students’ understanding of field lines. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 107–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Prokop, P., & Fancovicová, J. (2006). Students’ ideas about the human body: do they really draw what they know? Journal of Baltic Science Education, 2(10), 86–95.Google Scholar
  41. Rennie, L. J., & Jarvis, T. (1995). Childrens choice of drawings to communicate their ideas about technology. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reiss, M. J., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Students’ understandings of human organs and organ systems. Research in Science Education, 31(3), 383–399.Google Scholar
  43. Reiss, M. J., Tunnicliffe, S. D., Andersen, A. M., Bartoszeck, A., Carvalho, G. S., Chen, S. Y., et al. (2002). An international study ofyoung peoples’ drawings of what is inside themselves. Journal of Biological Education, 36(2), 58–64.Google Scholar
  44. Saarelainen, M., Laaksonen, A., & Hirvonen, P. E. (2007). Students’ initial knowledge of electric and magnetic fields—more profound explanations and reasoning models for undesired conceptions. European Journal of Physics, 28, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Saarelainen, M., Laaksone, A., & Hirvomen, P. E. (2009). Designing a teaching sequence for electrostatics at undergraduate level by using educational reconstruction. Latin American Journal of Physics Education, 3(3), 518–526.Google Scholar
  46. Sahin, C., Ipek, H., & Ayas, A., (2008). Student understanding of light concept primary schools: a cross-age study. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(1), Art:7.Google Scholar
  47. Sandoval, M., & Mora, C. D. (2009). Modelos erróneos sobre la comprensión del campo eléctrico en estudiantes universitariosm [Erroneus models about the understanding of the electric field in university students]. Latin-American Journal of Physics Education, 3(3), 647–655.Google Scholar
  48. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sonmez, V., & Alacapınar, F. G. (2011). Orneklendirilmiş bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Selected scientific research methods]. Ankara: Anı Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. Stocklmayer, S. M., & Treagust, D. F. (1994). A historical analysis of electric currents in textbook: a century of influence in physics education. Science and Education, 3, 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strube, P. (1988). The presentation of energy and fields in physics texts: a case of literary inertia. Physics Education, 23, 366–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thomas, G. V., & Silk, A. M. J. (1990). An introduction to the psychology of children’s drawings. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheat Sheaf.Google Scholar
  53. Thong, W. M., & Gunstone, R. (2008). Some conceptions of electromagnetic induction. Research in Science Education, 38, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Törnkvist, S., Petterson, K. A., & Transtömer, G. (1993). Confusion by representation: on students’ comprehension of the electric field concept. American Journal of Physics, 61, 335–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Uzunkavak, M. (2009). Ogrencilerin is kavramında pozitiflik-negatiflik ayrimi becerilerinin yazi ve cizim metoduyla ortaya çıkarilmasi [Revealing dicrimination skills of students between positive and negative work by writing and drawing method]. SDU International Journal of Technologic Sciences, 1(2), 10–20.Google Scholar
  56. Velazco, S., & Salinas, J. D. (2001). Comprensión de los Conceptos de Campo, Energía y Potencial Eléctricos y Magnéticos en Estudiantes Universitarios [Understanding the concepts of electric and magnetic field, energy, and potential in university students]. Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física, 23(3), 308–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Viennot, L., & Raison, S. (1992). Students’ reasoning about the superposition of electric fields. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Viennot, L., & Raison, S. (1999). Design and evaluation of a research-based teaching sequence: the superposition of electric fields. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  60. Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2005). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yontemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]. Ankara: Seckin Publishing.Google Scholar
  61. Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: epistemological, theoretical and methodological differences. European Journal of Education, 48(2), 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gazi Education Faculty, Department of Mathematics and Science EducationGazi UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations