• Jose Manuel AlmudiEmail author
  • Mikel Ceberio


This study explored the quality of arguments used by first-year engineering university students enrolled in a traditional physics course dealing with electromagnetic induction and related problem solving where they had to assess whether the electromagnetic induction phenomenon would occur. Their conclusions were analyzed for the relevance of the laws and principles they had considered when coming to a conclusion (conceptual relevance) and the quality of the evidence and whether their conclusions were validated by the consistency of their reasoning (sufficiency of the reasoning). The most remarkable findings revealed emerging deficiencies linked to the fact that, when considering the evidence, in most cases, students do not reason the relationship between the evidence and the conclusion properly and they used only the Faraday Law. Implications for teaching, based on the results of this study, suggest that instruction should consider both the Faraday’s and Lorentz Force Laws when trying to calculate the magnetic flow variation through the area swept by the conductor. Furthermore, considerations should explore both laws as equivalent and the need to develop a reasoned justification for their conclusions using the appropriate foundation.


argumentation electromagnetic induction university physics teaching 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abell, S. K., Anderson, G. & Chezem, J. (2000). Science as argument and explanation: Exploring concepts of sound in third grade. In J. Minstrell & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 100–119). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  2. Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Cetin, P. S. & Kaya, P. (2012). Argumentation and students’ conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 1303–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In M. Linn, E. A. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 115–143). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Chalmers, A. F. (2000). What is this thing called science? (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, United Kingdom: McGraw Hill Education.Google Scholar
  5. Cheng, D. K. (1993). Fundamentals of engineering electromagnetics. Wilmington, DE: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Chang, H.-Y., Zhang, H., Tate, E. D. & Schwendimann, B. (2012). Research on critique and argumentation from the technology enhanced learning in science center. In M. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research (pp. 157–199). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Driver, R. A., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duschl, R. A. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erduran, S., Simon, S. & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ford, C. L. & Yore, L. D. (2012). Toward convergence of metacognition, reflection, and critical thinking: Illustrations from natural and social sciences teacher education and classroom practice. In A. Zohar & J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 251–271). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Furió, C. & Calatayud, M. L. (2000). Functional fixedness and functional reduction as common sense reasoning in chemical equilibrium and geometry and polarity of molecules. Science Education, 84, 545–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galili, I., Kaplan, D. & Lehavy, Y. (2006). Teaching Faraday’s law of electromagnetic induction in an introductory physics course. American Journal of Physics, 74(4), 337–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guisasola, J., Almudí, J. M., Ceberio, M. & Zubimendi, J. L. (2009). Designing and evaluating research-based instructional sequences for introducing magnetic field. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(4), 699–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guisasola, J., Almudí, J. M. & Zuza, K. (2013). University student’s understanding of electromagnetic induction. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 2692–2717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guisasola, J., Furió, C. & Ceberio, M. (2008). Science education in focus. In M. V. Thomase (Ed.), Science education based on developing guided research (pp. 173–201). New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 91–116). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–28). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., Rodríguez, M. & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2005, April). Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  21. Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2006). Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  22. Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometric, 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lawson, A. (2002). Sound and faulty arguments generated by preservice biology teachers when testing hypotheses involving unobservable entities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lin, S. S. & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lorrain, P., Corson, D. L. & Lorrain, F. (2000). Fundamentals of electromagnetic phenomena. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  26. McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data: Proceedings of 33rd Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 233–265). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Meng Thong, W. & Gunstone, R. (2008). Some student conceptions of electromagnetic induction. Research in Science Education, 38, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. National Research Council (2012). In H. Quinn, H. A. Schweingruber & T. Keller (Eds.), A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  29. Newton, P., Driver, R. & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Osborne, J. (2012). The role of argument: Learning how to learn in school science. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin & C. McRobbie (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 933–949). New York. NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 969–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93, 448–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sampson, V., Grooms, J. & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95, 217–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sandoval, W. A. & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sandoval, W. A. & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Venturini, P. & Albe, V. (2002). Interpretation des similitudes et differences dans la maitrise conceptualle d’etudiants en electromagnetisme a partir de leur(s) rapport(s) au(x) savoir(s) [Interpretation of the similitudes and differences in the conceptual mastering of electromagnetism based on the students’ relation to knowledge]. Aster, 35, 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Young, H. D. & Freedman, R. A. (2009). University physics with modern physics (12th ed.). Naucalpan de Juárez, México: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  42. Yu, S.-M. & Yore, L. D. (2013). Quality, evolution, and positional change of university students’ argumentation patterns about organic agriculture during an argument–critique–argument experience. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 1233–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of the Basque CountryBilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations