Pre-service physics teachers’ content knowledge of electric and magnetic field concepts: Conceptual facets and their balance

Maija Nousiainen 1 * , Ismo T Koponen 1
More Detail
1 Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp. 74-90. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9499
OPEN ACCESS   1795 Views   1118 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

The concepts of electricity and magnetism in physics are complex and demanding to learn because their meaning builds through several different phenomenological areas. Each of these phenomenological areas adds a certain facet of the meaning of the concept. All standard physics textbooks discuss at least 1) force, 2) energy and work, and 3) electric charge and current, which are different phenomenological facets of field and which also are implicitly covered in instruction. It is of interest to ask, how these three facets are actually reflected in university students’ declarative (expressed and communicated) knowledge of electric and magnetic field concepts. Here this problem is addressed by using recently introduced concept networks as a research tool. Using these concept networks, pre-service physics teachers have represented their views how electric and magnetic field concepts are linked to other concepts and conceptual elements in electricity and magnetism. The results suggest that more extensive is the students’ basis of content knowledge the more balanced are the facets, while students with less extensive basis of content knowledge tend to favour forcebased understanding of the electric and magnetic fields. The implications of the findings on teaching and instruction are discussed.
Keywords: field concept, conceptual facet, concept network, conceptual understanding

CITATION

Nousiainen, M., & Koponen, I. T. (2017). Pre-service physics teachers’ content knowledge of electric and magnetic field concepts: Conceptual facets and their balance. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 74-90. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9499

REFERENCES

  • Albe, V., Venturini, P.,and Lascours, J., (2001). Electromagnetic Concepts in Mathematical Representation of Physics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(2), 197-203.
  • Chabay, R., and Sherwood, B., (2002).Matter & Interactions: Electric and Magnetic Interactions.USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Chabay, R., and Sherwood, B., (2006). Restructuring the introductory electricity and magnetism course. American Journal of Physics, 74(4), 329–336.
  • Chang, W., (2011). Integrating electrostatics with demonstrations and interactive teaching.American Journal of Physics, 79(2), 226-238.
  • Darrigol, O., (2000). Electrodynamic from Ampère to Einstein. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
  • Estrada, E.,(2012).The Structure of Complex Networks. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Feynman, R., Leighton, R., and Sands, M.,(1964). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. II. Massachusetts, USA: Addison-Weasley.
  • Furió, C., and Guisasola, J., (1998). Difficulties in learning the concept of electric field. Science Education, 82(4), 511-526.
  • Galili, I.,(1995). Mechanics Background for Students’ Misconceptions in Electro-Magnetism. International Journal of Science Education,17(3), 371–387.
  • Guisasola, J., Almudi, J., Salinas, J., Zuza, K., and Ceberio, M., (2008). The Gauss and Ampere laws: different laws but similar difficulties for students learning. European Journal of Physics, 29(5), 1005-1016.
  • Guisasola, J., Almudi, J.M., and Zubimendi, J.L., (2004). Difficulties in learning the introductory magnetic field theory in the first years of university. Science Education, 88(3), 443-464.
  • Halliday, D., Resnick, R.,and Walker, J., (2005).Fundamentals of Physics. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Hoyningen-Huene, P., (1993).Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn's Philosophy of Science. Chicago, USA: Chicago University Press.
  • Kelly, J., and Takao, A., (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314-342.
  • Knight, R.D.,(2008). Physics for Scientists and Engineers: A Strategic Approach. San Francisco, USA: Pearson Addison-Wesley.
  • Koponen, I., and Nousiainen, M., (2013). Pre-service Physics Teachers' Understanding of the Relational Structure of Physics Concepts: Organising Subject Content for Purposes of Teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 325-357.
  • Koponen, I., and Nousiainen, M., (2014). Concept Networks in Learning: Finding Key Concepts in Learners' Representations of the Interlinked Structure of Scientific knowledge. Journal of Complex Networks, 2(2), 187-202.
  • Krathwohl, D., (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.
  • Kuhn T. S., (1996/1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.
  • Majidi, S., (2014). A Comparison between the Knowledge Organization of University Physics Teachers and the Textbooks They Use for Their Teaching Purposes: Biot-Savart Law and Ampere’s Law.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(6), 1281-1314.
  • Majidi, S.,and Mäntylä, T.,(2011).Knowledge Organization in Physics Textbooks: A Case Study of Magnetostatics. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10(4), 285-299
  • Maloney, D., O’Kuma, T., Hieggelke, C.,and Van Heuvelen, A., (2001). Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism. American Journal of Physics, 69(7), 12-23.
  • Nousiainen, M., (2013). Coherence of Pre-service Physics Teachers’ Views of the Relatedness of Physics Concepts. Science & Education, 22(3), 505-525.
  • Pocovi, M.,and Finley, F., (2002). Lines of Force: Faraday’s and Students’ Views. Science & Education, 11(5), 459-474.
  • Sampson, V., and Clark, D., (2008). Assessment of the Ways Students Generate Arguments in Science Education: Current Perspectives and Recommendations of Future Directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.
  • Sandoval, W., and Millwood, K., (2005). The Quality of Students’ Use of Evidence in Written Scientific Explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
  • Savelsbergh, E., de Jong, T., and Ferguson-Hessler, M., (2011). Choosing the right solution approach: The crucial role of situational knowledge in electricity and magnetism. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 7(010103), 1-12.
  • Smith,C.,and Wise,M. N., (1989).Energy and Empire. A biographical study of Lord Kelvin. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Törnkvist, S., Pettersson, K.-A., and Tranströmer, G., (1993). Confusion by representation: On student’s comprehension of the electric field concept. American Journal of Physics, 61(4), 335-338.
  • Viennot L., and Rainson S., (1992). Students’ reasoning about the superposition of electric fields. International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 475-487.
  • Whittaker, E., (1910). A History of the theories of aether and electricity. Dublin, Ireland: Longman, Green and Co.
  • Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., and Shavelson, R. J., (2005). Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation, and use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(2), 166-184.
  • Young, H., and Freedman, R.,(2004). Sears and Zemansky’s university physics. San Francisco, USA: Pearson Addison-Weasley.