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

- 33 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

- Acar, B., & Tarhan, L. (2008). Effects of cooperative learning on students’ understanding of metallic bonding.
*Research in Science Education, 38*, 401–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Ayas, A. (2006).
*Kavram öğrenimi, fen ve teknoloji öğretimi [Concept learning, science and technology teaching]*. Ankara: Pegema Publishing.Google Scholar - 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 - Bilal, E., & Erol, M. (2009). Investigating students’ conceptions of some electricity concepts.
*Latin American Journal of Physics Education, 3*(2), 193–201.Google Scholar - 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. - 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 - Chabay, R. W., & Sherwood, B. A. (2000).
*Matter & interactions II: Electric and magnetic interactions*. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar - 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. - Creswell, J. W. (2013).
*Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five approaches*(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar - 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 - 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. - 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 - 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 - Feymann, R., Leighton, R., & Sands, M. (2016). Feynman fizik dersleri (Feynman physics course). Istanbul: Alfa Puslishing.Google Scholar
- Furió, C., & Guisasola, J. (1998). Difficulties in learning the concept of electric field.
*Science Education, 82*(4), 511–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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. - 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 - 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 - Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989).
*Fourth generation evaluation*. Newbury Park: SagePublications.Google Scholar - 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 - 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 - 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. - Hestenes, D., & Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test.
*The Physics Teacher, 30*, 159–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Koch, T. (2006). Establishing rigour in qualitative research: the decision trail.
*Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53*(1), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kose, S. (2008). Diagnosing student misconceptions: using drawings as a research method.
*World Applied Sciences Journal, 3*, 283–293.Google Scholar - 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 - 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 - 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 - Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994).
*Qualitative data analysis*(2nd ed.). Thou-sand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar - 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 - Osbeck, L. M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2006). The distribution of representation.
*Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 36*(2), 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Ozay, E., & Oztas, H. (2003). Secondary students’ interpretations of photosynthesis and plant nutrition.
*Journal of Biological Education, 37*, 68–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - 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 - Pocovi, M. C., & Finley, F. (2003). Historical evolution of the field view and textbook accounts.
*Science Education, 12*, 387–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Povoci, M. C., & Finley, F. (2002). Lines of force: Faraday’s and students’ views.
*Science Education, 11*, 459–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - Sonmez, V., & Alacapınar, F. G. (2011).
*Orneklendirilmiş bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Selected scientific research methods]*. Ankara: Anı Publishing.Google Scholar - 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 - Strube, P. (1988). The presentation of energy and fields in physics texts: a case of literary inertia.
*Physics Education, 23*, 366–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Thomas, G. V., & Silk, A. M. J. (1990).
*An introduction to the psychology of children’s drawings*. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheat Sheaf.Google Scholar - Thong, W. M., & Gunstone, R. (2008). Some conceptions of electromagnetic induction.
*Research in Science Education, 38*, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - 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 - 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 - Viennot, L., & Raison, S. (1992). Students’ reasoning about the superposition of electric fields.
*International Journal of Science Education, 14*, 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992).
*Probing understanding*. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar - Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2005).
*Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yontemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]*. Ankara: Seckin Publishing.Google Scholar - 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