Research in Science Education

, Volume 43, Issue 5, pp 1891–1915 | Cite as

Categorization of Alternative Conceptions in Electricity and Magnetism: the Case of Ethiopian Undergraduate Students

  • Bekele Gashe Dega
  • Jeanne Kriek
  • Temesgen Fereja Mogese


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.


Alternative conception Categories of alternative conceptions Conceptual change Electricity and magnetism Ethiopia Framework thematic analysis 


  1. Bao, L., & Redish, E. F. (2001). Concentration analysis: a quantitative assessment of student states. American Journal of Physics, 69(7), S45–S53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bilal, E., & Erol, M. (2009). Investigating students’ conceptions of some electricity concepts. Latin American Journal of Physics Education, 3(2), 193–201.Google Scholar
  7. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  8. Chabay, R., & Sherwood, B. (2006). Restructuring the introductory electricity & magnetism course. American Journal of Physics, 74(4), 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chi, M. T. H., & Slotta, J. D. (1993). The ontological coherence of intuitive physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 249–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. diSessa, A. A. (1982). Unlearning Aristotelian physics: a study of knowledge-based learning. Cognitive Science, 6(1), 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2–3), 105–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duit, R. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. Kiel: Institute for Science Education (IPN) (Distributed electronically).Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dykstra, D. I., Boyle, C. F., & Monach, I. A. (1992). Studying conceptual change in learning physics. Science Education, 76(6), 615–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Elby, A. (2010). Coherence vs. fragmentation in student epistemologies: a reply to Smith & Wenk. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 14(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  26. Engelhadt, P. V., & Beichner, R. J. (2004). Students’ understanding of current resistive electrical circuits. American Journal of Physics, 72(1), 98–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.) (1996) Constructivism: theory, perspectives and practice. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  29. Fredette, N., & Lochhead, J. (1980). Student conceptions of simple circuits. Physics Teacher, 18(3), 194–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Galili, I. (1995). Mechanics background influences students’ conceptions in electromagnetism. International Journal of Science Education, 17(3), 371–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grayson, D. J. (1994). Concept substitution: an instructional strategy for promoting conceptual change. Research in Science Education, 24, 102–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of Science Education, 3, 383–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meaning of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2(1), 5–61.Google Scholar
  37. Leppävirta, J. (2012). The effect of naïve ideas on students’ reasoning about electricity and magnetism. Research in Science Education, 42(4), 753–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Linder, C. J. (1993). A challenge to conceptual change. Science Education, 77, 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marx, J. D. (1998). Creation of a Diagnostic Exam for Introductory, Undergraduate Electricity and Magnetism (Doctoral dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute). Retrieved from 5 December 2010.
  42. McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248(4), 122–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McDermott, L. C., & Redish, E. F. (1999). Resource letter: PER-1: physics education research. American Journal of Physics, 67(9), 755–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining ‘at rest’ condition of an object. Physics Teacher, 20(1), 10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. MOE. (2009). Harmonized curriculum for BSc Degree program in Physics. Addis Ababa: Ethiopia.Google Scholar
  46. Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Osborne, R. (1981). Children’s ideas about electric current. New Zealand Science Teacher, 29, 12–19.Google Scholar
  48. Osborne, R. (1983). Towards modifying children’s ideas about electric current. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1(1), 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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 Accessed 5 January 2011.
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63, 655–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Saglam, M., & Millar, R. (2004). Diagnostic test of students’ ideas in electromagnetism. Retrieved from Accessed 29 October 2010.
  59. Saglam, M., & Millar, R. (2006). Upper high school students’ understanding of electromagnetism. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 543–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stavy, R. (1998). Special issue: conceptual development in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1151–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thagard, P. (1990). Concepts and conceptual change. Syntheses, 82, 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Valerie, V. (1997). ‘Focus groups: a useful qualitative method for educational research?’. British Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Von Glasersfeld, E., & Steffe, L. P. (1991). Conceptual models in educational research and practice. Journal of Educational Thought, 25(2), 91–103.Google Scholar
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vosniadou, S. (2007). Conceptual change and education. Human Development, 50, 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in development. Review of Educational Research, 57(1), 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth. A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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 Accessed 1 December 2010.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bekele Gashe Dega
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jeanne Kriek
    • 2
  • Temesgen Fereja Mogese
    • 3
  1. 1.Physics DepartmentAmbo UniversityAmboEthiopia
  2. 2.Institute for Science and Technology EducationUniversity of South AfricaPretoriaSouth Africa
  3. 3.Department of Curriculum Studies and InstructionAddis Ababa UniversityAddis AbabaEthiopia

Personalised recommendations