Abstract
This paper describes responses from 28 first-year university physics students to one question of a written test which was followed up by an interview. The study has two main research aims. Firstly, it characterises the conceptual structures of students regarding the phenomenon in question. As well as being interesting in their own right, these student understandings cast light on some broader issues regarding understanding of field representations. While students' understandings of circuit electricity are well described in the existing science education literature, their understandings of field phenomena are not. Secondly, it throws light on theoretical questions about the SOLO Taxonomy, which is the framework used to study the students' conceptual structures. Of particular interest is the nature of student thinking that marks transition from the Concrete Symbolic to the Formal SOLO mode in this area.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Biggs, J. & Collis, K. (1982).Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
Collis, K., & Biggs, J. (1979).Classroom examples of cognitive development phenomena: The SOLO Taxonomy. Report to Educational Research and Development Committee.
Fergusson-Hessler, M. & de Jong, T. (1984). On success and failure in the solving of problems in electricity and magnetism. inResearch on Physics Education: Proceedings of the first international seminar, La Londe les Maures, 1983. Paris: Editions du CNRS. 271–279.
Herrmann, F. (1991). Teaching the magnetostatic field: Problems to avoid.American Journal of Physics, 59 (5), 447–452.
Levins, L. & Pegg, J. (1993). Students' understanding of concepts related to plant growth.Research in Science Education, 23, 165–173.
MacMillian, C. & Swadener, M. (1991). Novice use of qualitative versus quantitative problem solving in electrostatics.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 661–670.
Maloney, D. P. (1985). Charged poles?Physics Education, 20, 310–316.
Pegg, J. (1992). Assessing students' understanding at the primary and secondary level in the mathematical sciences. In M. Stephens & J. Lizard (Eds.)Reshaping assessment practices: Assessment in the mathematical sciences under challenge, pp. 368–385. Hawthorn: ACER.
Pegg, J. & Coady, C. (1993). Identifying SOLO levels in the Formal mode. In I. Hirabayashi, N. Nohda, K. Shigematsu & F.-L. Lin (Eds.)Proceedings of the 17th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol I, pp. 212–219. University of Tsukaba, Tsukaba, Ibariki, Japan.
Stanbridge, B. (1993). Towards an alternative mode of assessment in senior chemistry: Using cognitive criteria.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 39(3), 69–72.
Stocklmayer, S. M., Treagust D. F. & Zadnik, M. (1994, July). Why use a particle model to teach electricity? Paper presented at the 25th ASERA conference, Hobart.
Törnkvist, S., Petterson, K.-A. & Tranströmer, G. (1993). Confusion by representation: On students' comprehension of the electric field concept.American Journal of Physics, 61(4), 335–338.
Viennot, L. & Rainson, S. (1992). Students' reasoning about the superposition of electric fields.International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 475–487.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Specializations: physics education, electricity and magnetism, conceptual structures, SOLO Taxonomy.
Specializations: SOLO Taxonomy, conceptual structures, mathematics education.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Guth, J., Pegg, J. First-year tertiary students' understandings of iron filing patterns around a magnet. Research in Science Education 24, 137–146 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356338
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356338