Advertisement

Common Misunderstandings and Challenges in Learning Gauss’s Law in a Junior Level Electromagnetic Engineering Course

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 716)

Abstract

Common misunderstandings when learning Gauss’s Law in a college junior level electromagnetic engineering course are identified by observing normal course assessments and conducting one on one student interviews. Additionally, the extent to which students in this course struggle to translate prior mathematics is investigated by codifying student performance on normal assessments using a rubric developed by the authors based on Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) Criterion 3 (a) and (e). Five misconceptions are identified, three of which agree with physics educational literature, as well as a need for better scaffolding the translation of calculus II and multidimensional calculus material. Future work and possible intervention strategies are discussed.

Keywords

ABET Criterion 3 Engineering education Gauss’s Law Misunderstandings 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the members and steering committee of the Future Academic Scholars in Teaching (FAST) program for the 2016–2017 academic year, as well as the participants in the spring 2017 offering of ECE 305. Additionally, the authors would like to thank The Graduate School at Michigan State for their financial support of the FAST program.

References

  1. 1.
    Dischino, M., DeLaura, J.A., Donnelly, J., Massa, N.M., Hanes, F.: Increasing the STEM pipeline through problem-based learning. Technol. Interface Int. J. 12(1), 21–29 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Freeman, S., Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., Wenderoth, M.P.: Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111(23), 8410–8415 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tanner, K., Allen, D.: Cultural competence in the college biology classroom. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 6, 251–258 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chabay, R., Sherwood, B.: Restructuring the introductory electricity and magnetism course. Am. J. Phys. 74(4), 329 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tornkvist, S.: Confusion by representation: on student’s comprehension of the electric field concept. Am. J. Phys. 61(4), 335 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nguyen, N.-L., Meltzer, D.E.: Initial understanding of vector concepts among students in introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys. 71(6), 630–638 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Furió, C., Guisasola, J.: Difficulties in learning the concept of electric field. Sci. Educ. 82, 511–526 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aubrecht, G.J., Raduta, C.: Contrasts in student understanding of simple E&M questions in two countries. In: AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 790, no. 2005, pp. 85–88 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Singh, C.: Student understanding of symmetry and Gauss’s law. In: AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 790, pp. 65–68 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chabay, R., Sherwood, B.: Qualitative understanding and retention. AAPT Announcer 27(2), 96 (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ding, L., Chabay, R., Sherwood, B., Beichner, R.: Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: brief electricity and magnetism assessment. Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res. 2(1), 1–7 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morgan, C., Watson, A.: The interpretative nature of teachers’ assessment of students’ mathematics: issues for equity. J. Res. Math. Educ. 33(2), 78–110 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jonsson, A., Svingby, G.: The use of scoring rubrics: reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educ. Res. Rev. 2(2), 130–144 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations