Advertisement

ASSESSING UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND CONFIDENCE OF ELECTROMAGNETICS

  • Johanna LeppavirtaEmail author
Article

Abstract

The study examines how students’ conceptual understanding changes from high confidence with incorrect conceptions to high confidence with correct conceptions when reasoning about electromagnetics. The Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism test is weighted with students’ self-rated confidence on each item in order to infer how strongly conceptions are held. The data (N  =  118) are collected from an undergraduate static field theory course at a technical university in Finland. The data are analyzed using frequency distributions, correlation, and independent-samples t test. In overall, students’ confidence grows along with the conceptual gains after instruction. The significant difference in the development of conceptual understanding between high-achieving and low-achieving students is found in the conceptual area of Newton’s laws. Several strongly held alternative conceptions are also identified.

Key words

conceptual understanding confidence CSEM electromagnetics physics education research 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is part of the EPOP project and was supported by Aalto University School of Electrical Engineering.

References

  1. Abimbola, I. O. (1988). The problem of terminology in the study of student conceptions in science. Science Education, 72, 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagno, E. & Eylon, B.-S. (1997). From problem solving to a knowledge structure: An example from the domain of electromagnetism. American Journal of Physics, 65, 726–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bao, L. & Redish, E. F. (2001). Concentration analysis: A quantitative assessment of student states. American Journal of Physics, 69, S45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R. & U.S. National Research Council Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, D. E. & Hammer, D. (2008). Conceptual change in physics. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (p. 127). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Ding, L. & Beichner, R. (2009). Approaches to data analysis of multiple-choice questions. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 5, 020103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ding, L., Chabay, R., Sherwood, B. & Beichner, R. (2006). Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 2, 010105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. diSessa, A. A. (2006). A history of conceptual change research. Threads and fault lines. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 265–282). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Duit, R. (1999). Conceptual change approaches in science education. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 263–282). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  12. Furio, C. & Guisasola, J. (1998). Difficulties in learning the concept of electric field. Science Education, 82, 511–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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, 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hasan, S., Bagayoko, D. & Kelley, E. L. (1999). Misconceptions and the certainty of response index (CRI). Physics Education, 34, 294–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klymkowsky, M. W., Taylor, L. B., Spindler, S. R. & Garvin-Daxas, R. K. (2006). Research and teaching: Two dimensional, implicit confidence tests as a tool for recognizing student misconceptions. Journal of College Science Teaching, 2006, 44–48.Google Scholar
  16. Lasry, N. & Aulls, M. W. (2007). The effect of multiple internal representations on context-rich instruction. American Journal of Physics, 75, 1030–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lindell, I. V. & Sihvola, A. (2007). Electromagnetic field theory. Static fields. Espoo, Finland: Otatieto. in Finnish.Google Scholar
  18. Liu, X. & MacIsaac, D. (2005). An investigation of factors affecting the degree of naive impetus theory application. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 Physics, 69, S12–S23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  21. McDermott, L. C. (1991). Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned-closing the gap. American Journal of Physics, 59, 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nguyen, N.-L. & Meltzer, D. E. (2003). Initial understanding of vector concepts among students in introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 71, 630–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Notaros, B. M. (2002). Concept inventory assessment instruments for electromagnetics education. Proceedings of the Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium 2002. (pp. 684–687). IEEE.Google Scholar
  24. Pallier, G., Wilkinson, R., Danthiir, V., Kleitman, S., Knezevic, G., Stankov, L. & Roberts, R. D. (2002). The role of individual differences in the accuracy of confidence judgments. The Journal of General Psychology, 129, 257–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pesman, H. & Eryilmaz, A. (2010). Development of a three-tier test to assess misconceptions about simple electric circuits. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 208–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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, 150–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Planinic, M., Ivanjek, L. & Susac, A. (2010). Rasch model based analysis of the Force Concept Inventory. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 6, 010103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Potgieter, M., Malatje, E., Gaigher, E. & Venter, E. (2010). Confidence versus performance as an indicator of the presence of alternative conceptions and inadequate problem-solving skills in mechanics. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1407–1429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Saglam, M. (2010). Students’ performance awareness, motivational orientations and learning strategies in a problem-based electromagnetism course. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11, Article 16.Google Scholar
  32. Seymor, E. & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Oxford, UK: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  33. Singh, C. (2006). Student understanding of symmetry and Gauss’s law of electricity. American Journal of Physics, 74, 923–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stake, J. E. & Mares, K. R. (2001). Science enrichment programs for gifted high school girls and boys: Predictors of program impact on science confidence and motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1065–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thompson, B. (1993). The use of statistical significance tests in research: Bootstrap and other alternatives. The Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 361–377.Google Scholar
  36. Törnqvist, S., Pettersson, K.-A. & Tranströmer, G. (1993). Confusion by representation: On student’s comprehension of the electric field concept. American Journal of Physics, 61, 335–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. Vosniadou, S. (2008). An introduction. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (p. xiv). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radio Science and EngineeringAalto University School of Electrical EngineeringAaltoFinland

Personalised recommendations