Date: 16 Dec 2012
Categorization of Alternative Conceptions in Electricity and Magnetism: the Case of Ethiopian Undergraduate Students
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
The purpose of this study was to categorize 35 Ethiopian undergraduate physics students’ alternative conceptions in the concepts of electric potential and energy. A descriptive qualitative research design was used to categorize the students’ alternative conceptions. Four independently homogeneous ability focus groups were formed to elicit the students’ conceptual perceptions. A five-stage thematic (categorical) framework analysis—familiarization, identifying a thematic framework, coding, charting, and interpretation—was made to analyze data of the focus group discussions. The categories of alternative conceptions were based on the students’ epistemological and ontological descriptions of the concepts investigated. Consequently, the following categories were diagnosed: naive physics, lateral alternative conceptions, ontological alternative conceptions, Ohm’s phenomenological primitives, mixed conceptions, and loose ideas. The extensiveness of the alternative conceptions from the epistemological and ontological perspectives was comparable and considerable. The naïve physics and lateral alternative conceptions were more extensive than the others. The alternative conceptions were less frequently and inconsistently revealed within and across the categories. In general, it was concluded that the categories have common characteristics of diversified distribution of alternative conceptions and multiple alternative conceptions of specific concepts within and across the categories. Finally, instructional and theoretical implications are forwarded.
Bao, L., & Redish, E. F. (2001). Concentration analysis: a quantitative assessment of student states. American Journal of Physics, 69(7), S45–S53.CrossRef
Bao, L., & Redish, E. F. (2006). Model analysis: representing and assessing the dynamics of student learning. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 2, 010103.CrossRef
Baser, M. (2006). Effects of conceptual change and traditional confirmatory simulations on pre-service teachers’ understanding of direct current circuits. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(5), 367–381.CrossRef
Baser, M., & Durmus, S. (2010). The effectiveness of computer supported versus real laboratory inquiry learning environments on the understanding of direct current electricity among pre-service elementary school teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 47–61.
Baser, M., & Geban, O. (2007). Effect of instruction based on conceptual change activities on students’ understandings of static electricity concepts. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(2), 243–267.CrossRef
Bilal, E., & Erol, M. (2009). Investigating students’ conceptions of some electricity concepts. Latin American Journal of Physics Education, 3(2), 193–201.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge: MIT.
Chabay, R., & Sherwood, B. (2006). Restructuring the introductory electricity & magnetism course. American Journal of Physics, 74(4), 329–336.CrossRef
Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: belief revision, mental model transformation and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61–82). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRef
Chi, M. T. H., & Slotta, J. D. (1993). The ontological coherence of intuitive physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 249–260.CrossRef
Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, J. (1994). From thins to processes: a theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 27–43.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: a theoretical framework and implications for science education. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.CrossRef
Clark, D. B., D’Angelo, C. M., & Schleigh, S. P. (2011). Comparison of students’ knowledge structure coherence and understanding of force in the Philippines, Turkey, China, Mexico, and the United States. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 207–261.CrossRef
Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66–71.CrossRef
Ding, L., Chabay, R., Sheewood, B., & Beichner, R. (2006). Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: brief electricity & magnetism assessment. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 2, 1–7.
diSessa, A. A. (1982). Unlearning Aristotelian physics: a study of knowledge-based learning. Cognitive Science, 6(1), 37–75.CrossRef
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2–3), 105–225.CrossRef
diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N., & Esterly, J. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28(6), 843–900.CrossRef
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.CrossRef
Duit, R. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. Kiel: Institute for Science Education (IPN) (Distributed electronically).
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688.CrossRef
Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1991). Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: implications for educational practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 839–858.CrossRef
Dykstra, D. I., Boyle, C. F., & Monach, I. A. (1992). Studying conceptual change in learning physics. Science Education, 76(6), 615–652.CrossRef
Elby, A. (2010). Coherence vs. fragmentation in student epistemologies: a reply to Smith & Wenk. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 14(1), 1–22.
Engelhadt, P. V., & Beichner, R. J. (2004). Students’ understanding of current resistive electrical circuits. American Journal of Physics, 72(1), 98–115.CrossRef
Finkelstein, N. (2005). Learning physics in context: a study of student learning about electricity and magnetism. International Journal of Science Education, 27(10), 1187–109.CrossRef
Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.) (1996) Constructivism: theory, perspectives and practice. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Fredette, N., & Lochhead, J. (1980). Student conceptions of simple circuits. Physics Teacher, 18(3), 194–198.CrossRef
Galili, I. (1995). Mechanics background influences students’ conceptions in electromagnetism. International Journal of Science Education, 17(3), 371–387.CrossRef
Grayson, D. J. (1994). Concept substitution: an instructional strategy for promoting conceptual change. Research in Science Education, 24, 102–111.CrossRef
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.CrossRef
Hammer, D. (1996). Misconceptions or p-prims: how may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 97–127.CrossRef
Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of Science Education, 3, 383–396.CrossRef
Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1–13.CrossRef
Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meaning of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2(1), 5–61.
Leppävirta, J. (2012). The effect of naïve ideas on students’ reasoning about electricity and magnetism. Research in Science Education, 42(4), 753–767.CrossRef
Li, S. C., Law, N., & Lui, K. F. A. (2006). Cognitive perturbation through dynamic modeling: a pedagogical approach to conceptual change in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(6), 405–422.CrossRef
Linder, C. J. (1993). A challenge to conceptual change. Science Education, 77, 293–300.CrossRef
Maloney, D. P., O’Kuma, T. L., Hieggelke, C. J., & Heuvelen, A. V. (2001). Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity & magnetism. American Journal of Physics, S69(7), 12–23.CrossRef
Marx, J. D. (1998). Creation of a Diagnostic Exam for Introductory, Undergraduate Electricity and Magnetism (Doctoral dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute). Retrieved from http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=3786&DocID=114.Accessed 5 December 2010.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248(4), 122–130.CrossRef
McDermott, L. C., & Redish, E. F. (1999). Resource letter: PER-1: physics education research. American Journal of Physics, 67(9), 755–767.CrossRef
Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining ‘at rest’ condition of an object. Physics Teacher, 20(1), 10–14.CrossRef
MOE. (2009). Harmonized curriculum for BSc Degree program in Physics. Addis Ababa: Ethiopia.
Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152.CrossRef
Osborne, R. (1981). Children’s ideas about electric current. New Zealand Science Teacher, 29, 12–19.
Osborne, R. (1983). Towards modifying children’s ideas about electric current. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1(1), 73–83.CrossRef
Parker, A., & Tritter, J. (2006). Focus group method and methodology: current practice and recent debate. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29(1), 23–37.CrossRef
Planinic, M. (2006). Assessment of difficulties of some conceptual areas from electricity & magnetism using the Conceptual survey of Electricity and Magnetism. American Journal of Physics, 73(12), 1143–1148.CrossRef
Planinic, M., Boone, W. J., Krsnik, R., & Beilfuss, M. L. (2006). Exploring alternative conceptions from Newtonian dynamics and simple DC circuits: links between item difficulty and item confidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 150–171.CrossRef
Pollock, S. (2008, July 23–24). Comparing student learning with multiple research-based conceptual surveys: CSEM and BEMA. Paper presented at Physics Education Research Conference 2008, Edmonton, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=8109&DocID=742. Accessed 5 January 2011.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.CrossRef
Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63, 655–660.CrossRef
Ramadas, J., Barve, S., & Kumar, A. (1996). Alternative conceptions in Galilean relativity: inertial and non–inertial observers. International Journal of Science Education, 18(5), 615–629.CrossRef
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 173–194). London: Routledge.CrossRef
Rosenthal, A. S., & Henderson, C. (2006). Teaching about circuits at the introductory level: an emphasis on potential difference. American Journal of Physics, 74(4), 324–328.CrossRef
Saglam, M., & Millar, R. (2004). Diagnostic test of students’ ideas in electromagnetism. Retrieved from http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/educ/research/ResearchPaperSeries/index.htm. Accessed 29 October 2010.
Saglam, M., & Millar, R. (2006). Upper high school students’ understanding of electromagnetism. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 543–566.CrossRef
Shipstone, D. M. (1984). A study of children’s understanding of electricity in simple D.C. circuits. European Journal of Science Education, 6, 185–198.CrossRef
Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., & Joram, E. (1995). Assessing students’ misclassifications of physics concepts: an ontological basis for conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 373–400.CrossRef
Smith, C. L., & Wenk, L. (2006). Relations among three aspects of first-year college students’ epistemologies of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(8), 747–785.CrossRef
Stavy, R. (1998). Special issue: conceptual development in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1151–1154.CrossRef
Tao, P. K., & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859–882.CrossRef
Thagard, P. (1990). Concepts and conceptual change. Syntheses, 82, 255–274.CrossRef
Treagust, D., & Duit, R. (2008). Conceptual change: a discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(2), 297–328.CrossRef
Valerie, V. (1997). ‘Focus groups: a useful qualitative method for educational research?’. British Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 209–224.CrossRef
Venville, G. J., Louisell, R. D., & Wilhelm, J. A. (2012). Young children’s knowledge about the moon: a complex dynamic system. Research in Science Education, 42(4), 729–752.CrossRef
Von Glasersfeld, E., & Steffe, L. P. (1991). Conceptual models in educational research and practice. Journal of Educational Thought, 25(2), 91–103.
Vosniadou, S. (2002). On the nature of naïve physics. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change. Issues in theory and practice (pp. 61–76). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRef
Vosniadou, S. (2007). Conceptual change and education. Human Development, 50, 47–54.CrossRef
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in development. Review of Educational Research, 57(1), 51–67.CrossRef
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth. A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.CrossRef
Zavala, G., & Alarcon, H. (2008, July 23–24). Evaluation of Instruction Using the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism in Mexico. Paper presented at Physics Education Research Conference 2008, Edmonton, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=8126&DocID=759. Accessed 1 December 2010.
- Categorization of Alternative Conceptions in Electricity and Magnetism: the Case of Ethiopian Undergraduate Students
Research in Science Education
Volume 43, Issue 5 , pp 1891-1915
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Alternative conception
- Categories of alternative conceptions
- Conceptual change
- Electricity and magnetism
- Framework thematic analysis
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Physics Department, Ambo University, P. O. Box 19, Ambo, Ethiopia
- 2. Institute for Science and Technology Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa
- 3. Department of Curriculum Studies and Instruction, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia