{"title":"Students\u2019 Perception of Vector Representation in the Context of Electric Force and the Role of Simulation in Developing an Understanding","authors":"S. Shubha, B. N. Meera","volume":98,"journal":"International Journal of Educational and Pedagogical Sciences","pagesStart":501,"pagesEnd":510,"ISSN":"1307-6892","URL":"https:\/\/publications.waset.org\/pdf\/10000492","abstract":"
Physics Education Research (PER) results have shown
\r\nthat students do not achieve the expected level of competency in
\r\nunderstanding the concepts of different domains of Physics learning
\r\nwhen taught by the traditional teaching methods, the concepts of
\r\nElectricity and Magnetism (E&M) being one among them.
\r\nSimulation being one of the valuable instructional tools renders an
\r\nopportunity to visualize varied experiences with such concepts.
\r\nConsidering the electric force concept which requires extensive use
\r\nof vector representations, we report here the outcome of the research
\r\nresults pertaining to the student understanding of this concept and the
\r\nrole of simulation in using vector representation. The simulation
\r\nplatform provides a positive impact on the use of vector
\r\nrepresentation.
\r\nThe first stage of this study involves eliciting and analyzing
\r\nstudent responses to questions that probe their understanding of the
\r\nconcept of electrostatic force and this is followed by four stages of
\r\nstudent interviews as they use the interactive simulations of electric
\r\nforce in one dimension. Student responses to the questions are
\r\nrecorded in real time using electronic pad. A validation test interview
\r\nis conducted to evaluate students' understanding of the electric force
\r\nconcept after using interactive simulation. Results indicate lack of
\r\nprocedural knowledge of the vector representation. The study
\r\nemphasizes the need for the choice of appropriate simulation and
\r\nmode of induction for learning.<\/p>\r\n","references":"[1] Stephanie V. Chasteen, Steven J. Pollock, Rachel E. Pepper, and\r\nKatherine K. Perkins, \u201cTransforming the junior level: Outcomes from\r\ninstruction and research in E&M,\u201d Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol.\r\n8, no. 020107, pp. 1-18, Aug 2012.\r\n[2] Stephanie V. Chasteen, Rachel E. Pepper, Marcos D. Caballero, Steven\r\nJ. Pollock, and Katherine K. Perkins, \u201cColorado Upper-Division\r\nElectrostatics diagnostic: A conceptual assessment for the junior level,\u201d\r\nPhys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 8, no. 020108, pp. 1-15, Sep 2012.\r\n[3] S. J. Pollock, \u201cLongitudinal study of student conceptual understanding\r\nin electricity and magnetism,\u201d Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 5,\r\nno. 020110, pp.1-8, Dec 2009.\r\n[4] Matthew A. Kohlmyer, Marcos D. Caballero, Richard Catrambone, Ruth\r\nW. Chabay, Lin Ding, Mark P. Haugan, M. Jackson Marr, Bruce A.\r\nSherwood, and Michael F. Schatz, \u201c Tale of two curricula: The\r\nperformance of 2000 students in introductory electromagnetism,\u201d Phys.\r\nRev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 5, no. 020105, pp. 1-10, Oct 2009.\r\n[5] Ruth Chabay, and Bruce Sherwood, \u201cRestructuring the introductory\r\nelectricity and magnetism course,\u201d Am. J. Phys., vol.74, no. 4, pp. 329-\r\n336, Apr 2006.\r\n[6] J. Clement, \u201cStudents\u2019 preconceptions in introductory mechanics,\u201d Am.\r\nJ. Phys., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 66-69, Jan 1982.\r\n[7] I. Halloun, and D. Hestenes, \u201cCommon sense concepts about motion,\u201d\r\nAm. J. Phys., vol.53, no.11, pp.1-18, Nov 1985.\r\n[8] I. Halloun, and D. Hestenes, \u201cThe initial knowledge state of college\r\nstudents,\u201d Am. J. Phys., vol. 53, no.11, pp. 1043-1048, Nov 1985.\r\n[9] D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, \u201cForce Concept\r\nInventory,\u201d Phys. Teach., vol. 30, PP. 141-158, Mar 1992. [10] R. R. Hake, \u201cInteractive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six\r\nthousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics\r\ncourses,\u201d Am. J. Phys., vol. 66, no.1, pp. 64-74, Jan 1998.\r\n[11] L. Viennot, and S. Rainson, \u201cStudents reasoning about the superposition\r\nof electric fields,\u201d Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 475-487, 1992.\r\n[12] C. Raduta, General students\u2019 misconceptions related to electricity and\r\nmagnetism, arXiv:physics \/ 0503132.\r\n[13] D. P. Maloney, T. L. O\u2019Kuma, C. J. Hieggelke, and A.V. Heuvelen,\r\n\u201cSurveying students\u2019 conceptual knowledge of electricity and\r\nmagnetism,\u201d Am. J. Phys., vol. 69, no.7, pp. S12- S23, Jul 2001.\r\n[14] I. Galili, \u201cMechanics background influences students\u2019 conceptions in\r\nelectromagnetism,\u201d Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol.17, no. 3, pp. 371-387, 1995.\r\n[15] Salomon F Itza-Ortiz, Sanjay Rebello, and Dean Zollman, \u201cStudents\u2019\r\nmodels of Newton\u2019s second law in mechanics and electromagnetism,\u201d\r\nEur. J. Phys., vol. 25, pp. 81-89, 2004.\r\n[16] S. Tornkvist, K. A. Pettersson, and G. Transtromer, \u201cConfusion by\r\nrepresentation on students\u2019 comprehension of the electric field concept,\u201d\r\nAm. J. Phys., vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 335-338, Apr 1993.\r\n[17] Thomas M. Scaife, and Andrew F. Heckler, \u201cInterference between\r\nelectric and magnetic concepts in introductory physics,\u201d Phys. Rev. ST\r\nPhys. Educ. Res., vol. 7, no. 010104, pp.1-11, Mar 2011.\r\n[18] Eleanor C. Sayre, and Andrew F. Heckler, \u201cPeaks and decays of student\r\nknowledge in an introductory E&M course,\u201d Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ.\r\nRes., vol. 5, no. 013101, pp. 1-5, Feb 2009.\r\n[19] Lin Ding, Ruth Chabay, Bruce Sherwood, and Robert Beichner,\r\n\u201cEvaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief\r\nelectricity and magnetism assessment,\u201d Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.,\r\nvol. 2, no. 010105, pp. 1-7, Mar 2006.\r\n[20] Rachel E. Pepper, Stephanie V. Chasteen, Steven J. Pollock, and\r\nKatherine K. Perkins, \u201cObservations on student difficulties with\r\nmathematics in upper-division electricity and magnetism,\u201d Phys. Rev.\r\nST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 8, no. 010111, pp. 1-15, Mar 2012.\r\n[21] Colin S. Wallace, and Stephanie V. Chasteen, \u201cUpper-division students\u2019\r\ndifficulties with Ampere\u2019s law,\u201d Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 6,\r\nno. 020115, pp.1-8, Sep 2010.\r\n[22] C. A. Manogue, K. Browne, T. Dray, and B. Edwards, \u201cWhy is\r\nAmp\u00e8re\u2019s law so hard? A look at middle-division physics,\u201d Am. J.\r\nPhys., vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 344-350, Feb 2006.\r\n[23] Dong-Hai Nguyen, and N. Sanjay Rebello, \u201cStudents\u2019 difficulties with\r\nintegration in electricity,\u201d Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 7, no.\r\n010113, pp.1-11, Jun 2011.\r\n[24] Elwin R. Savelsbergh, Ton de Jong, Monica, and G. M. Ferguson-\r\nHessler, \u201cChoosing the right solution approach: The crucial role of\r\nsituational knowledge in electricity and magnetism,\u201d Phys. Rev. ST\r\nPhys. Educ. Res., vol. 7, no. 010103, pp. 1-12, Mar 2011.\r\n[25] Noah S. Podolefsky, Katherine K. Perkins, and Wendy K. Adams,\r\n\u201cFactors Promoting Engaged Exploration with Computer Simulations,\u201d\r\nPhys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 6, no.020117, pp.1-11, Oct 2010.\r\n[26] Jacquelyn J. Chini, Adrian Madsen, Elizabeth Gire, N. Sanjay Rebello,\r\nand Sadhana Puntambekar, \u201cExploration of factors that affect the\r\ncomparative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives in an\r\nundergraduate laboratory,\u201d Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 8,\r\nno.010113, pp. 1-12, Apr 2012.\r\n[27] Homeyra R. Sadaghiani, \u201cUsing multimedia learning modules in a\r\nhybrid-online course in electricity and magnetism,\u201d Phys. Rev. ST Phys.\r\nEduc. Res., vol. 7, no. 010102, pp.1-7, Mar 2011.\r\n[28] N. D. Finkelstein, W. K. Adams, C. J. Keller, P. B. Kohl, K. K. Perkins,\r\nN. S. Podolefsky, and S. Reid, \u201cWhen learning about the real world is\r\nbetter done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for\r\nlaboratory equipment,\u201d Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 1, no.\r\n010103, pp. 1-8, Oct 2005.\r\n[29] S. B. McKagan, W. Handley, K. K. Perkins, and C. E. Wieman, \u201cA\r\nResearch-Based Curriculum for Teaching the Photoelectric Effect,\u201d Am.\r\nJ. Phys., vol. 77, no.1, pp. 87-94, 2009.\r\n[30] S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, M. Dubson, C. Malley, S. Reid, R.\r\nLeMaster, and C. E. Wieman, \u201cDeveloping and Researching PhET\r\nsimulations for Teaching Quantum Mechanics,\u201d Am. J. Phys., vol. 76,\r\nno.1, pp. 406-417, Jan 2008.\r\n[31] Tomi Jaakkola, Sami Nurmi, and Koen Veermans, \u201cA comparison of\r\nstudents' conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only\r\nand simulation-laboratory contexts,\u201d J. Res. Sci. Teach., vol. 48, no. 1,\r\npp. 71-93, 2011.\r\n[32] Z.C. Zacharia, \u201cComparing and combining real and virtual\r\nexperimentation: an effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding\r\nof electric circuits,\u201d J. Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 23, no.2, pp.120-132,\r\nApr 2007.\r\n[33] Ariel Paul, Noah Podolefsky and Katherine Perkins, \u201cGuiding Without\r\nFeeling Guided: Implicit Scaffolding through Interactive Simulation\r\nDesign,\u201d AIP Conf. Proc., vol. 1513, no. 1, pp. 302-305, Jan 2013.\r\n[34] Guadalupe Martinez, Francisco L. Naranjo, Angel L. Perez, and Maria\r\nIsabel Suero, \u201cComparative study of the effectiveness of three learning\r\nenvironments: Hyper-realistic virtual simulations, traditional schematic\r\nsimulations and traditional laboratory,\u201d Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.,\r\nvol. 7, no. 020111, pp. 1-12, Oct 2011.\r\n[35] W. K. Adams, A. Paulson, and C. E. Wieman, \u201cWhat levels of guidance\r\nelicit engaged exploration with interactive simulations?,\u201d AIP Conf.\r\nProc., vol. 1064, pp. 59-62, Jul 2008.\r\n[36] Knight, \u201cThe vector knowledge of beginning physics students,\u201d Phys.\r\nTeach., vol. 33, pp. 74-77, Feb1995.\r\n[37] Sergio Flores, Stephen E. Kanim, and Christian H. Kautz, \u201cStudent use\r\nof vectors in introductory mechanics,\u201d Am. J. Phys., vol. 72, no. 4, pp.\r\n460-468, Apr 2004.\r\n[38] Beichner .R., \u201cTesting student interpretation of kinematics graphs,\u201d\r\nAm. J. Phys., vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 750-762, 1994.\r\n[39] Andrew Duffy, Boston University, http:\/\/physics.bu.edu\/~duffy\/Ejs\/.\r\n[40] Easy Java simulations, http:\/\/www.um.es\/fem\/Ejs.\r\n[41] Balasubrahmanya Hegde and B. N. Meera, \u201cHow do they solve it? An\r\ninsight into the learner\u2019s approach to the mechanism of physics problem\r\nsolving,\u201d Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol.8, no. 010109, pp. 1-9,\r\nMar 2012.","publisher":"World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology","index":"Open Science Index 98, 2015"}