Students’ 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

Abstract:

Physics Education Research (PER) results have shown that students do not achieve the expected level of competency in understanding the concepts of different domains of Physics learning when taught by the traditional teaching methods, the concepts of Electricity and Magnetism (E&M) being one among them. Simulation being one of the valuable instructional tools renders an opportunity to visualize varied experiences with such concepts. Considering the electric force concept which requires extensive use of vector representations, we report here the outcome of the research results pertaining to the student understanding of this concept and the role of simulation in using vector representation. The simulation platform provides a positive impact on the use of vector representation. The first stage of this study involves eliciting and analyzing student responses to questions that probe their understanding of the concept of electrostatic force and this is followed by four stages of student interviews as they use the interactive simulations of electric force in one dimension. Student responses to the questions are recorded in real time using electronic pad. A validation test interview is conducted to evaluate students' understanding of the electric force concept after using interactive simulation. Results indicate lack of procedural knowledge of the vector representation. The study emphasizes the need for the choice of appropriate simulation and mode of induction for learning.

Keywords: Electric Force, Interactive, Representation, Simulation.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1099208

References:

[1] Stephanie V. Chasteen, Steven J. Pollock, Rachel E. Pepper, and Katherine K. Perkins, “Transforming the junior level: Outcomes from instruction and research in E&M,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 8, no. 020107, pp. 1-18, Aug 2012.
[2] Stephanie V. Chasteen, Rachel E. Pepper, Marcos D. Caballero, Steven J. Pollock, and Katherine K. Perkins, “Colorado Upper-Division Electrostatics diagnostic: A conceptual assessment for the junior level,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 8, no. 020108, pp. 1-15, Sep 2012.
[3] S. J. Pollock, “Longitudinal study of student conceptual understanding in electricity and magnetism,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 5, no. 020110, pp.1-8, Dec 2009.
[4] Matthew A. Kohlmyer, Marcos D. Caballero, Richard Catrambone, Ruth W. Chabay, Lin Ding, Mark P. Haugan, M. Jackson Marr, Bruce A. Sherwood, and Michael F. Schatz, “ Tale of two curricula: The performance of 2000 students in introductory electromagnetism,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 5, no. 020105, pp. 1-10, Oct 2009.
[5] Ruth Chabay, and Bruce Sherwood, “Restructuring the introductory electricity and magnetism course,” Am. J. Phys., vol.74, no. 4, pp. 329- 336, Apr 2006.
[6] J. Clement, “Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 66-69, Jan 1982.
[7] I. Halloun, and D. Hestenes, “Common sense concepts about motion,” Am. J. Phys., vol.53, no.11, pp.1-18, Nov 1985.
[8] I. Halloun, and D. Hestenes, “The initial knowledge state of college students,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 53, no.11, pp. 1043-1048, Nov 1985.
[9] D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, “Force Concept Inventory,” Phys. Teach., vol. 30, PP. 141-158, Mar 1992.
[10] R. R. Hake, “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 66, no.1, pp. 64-74, Jan 1998.
[11] L. Viennot, and S. Rainson, “Students reasoning about the superposition of electric fields,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 475-487, 1992.
[12] C. Raduta, General students’ misconceptions related to electricity and magnetism, arXiv:physics / 0503132.
[13] D. P. Maloney, T. L. O’Kuma, C. J. Hieggelke, and A.V. Heuvelen, “Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 69, no.7, pp. S12- S23, Jul 2001.
[14] I. Galili, “Mechanics background influences students’ conceptions in electromagnetism,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol.17, no. 3, pp. 371-387, 1995.
[15] Salomon F Itza-Ortiz, Sanjay Rebello, and Dean Zollman, “Students’ models of Newton’s second law in mechanics and electromagnetism,” Eur. J. Phys., vol. 25, pp. 81-89, 2004.
[16] S. Tornkvist, K. A. Pettersson, and G. Transtromer, “Confusion by representation on students’ comprehension of the electric field concept,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 335-338, Apr 1993.
[17] Thomas M. Scaife, and Andrew F. Heckler, “Interference between electric and magnetic concepts in introductory physics,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 7, no. 010104, pp.1-11, Mar 2011.
[18] Eleanor C. Sayre, and Andrew F. Heckler, “Peaks and decays of student knowledge in an introductory E&M course,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 5, no. 013101, pp. 1-5, Feb 2009.
[19] Lin Ding, Ruth Chabay, Bruce Sherwood, and Robert Beichner, “Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 2, no. 010105, pp. 1-7, Mar 2006.
[20] Rachel E. Pepper, Stephanie V. Chasteen, Steven J. Pollock, and Katherine K. Perkins, “Observations on student difficulties with mathematics in upper-division electricity and magnetism,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 8, no. 010111, pp. 1-15, Mar 2012.
[21] Colin S. Wallace, and Stephanie V. Chasteen, “Upper-division students’ difficulties with Ampere’s law,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 6, no. 020115, pp.1-8, Sep 2010.
[22] C. A. Manogue, K. Browne, T. Dray, and B. Edwards, “Why is Ampère’s law so hard? A look at middle-division physics,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 344-350, Feb 2006.
[23] Dong-Hai Nguyen, and N. Sanjay Rebello, “Students’ difficulties with integration in electricity,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 7, no. 010113, pp.1-11, Jun 2011.
[24] Elwin R. Savelsbergh, Ton de Jong, Monica, and G. M. Ferguson- Hessler, “Choosing the right solution approach: The crucial role of situational knowledge in electricity and magnetism,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 7, no. 010103, pp. 1-12, Mar 2011.
[25] Noah S. Podolefsky, Katherine K. Perkins, and Wendy K. Adams, “Factors Promoting Engaged Exploration with Computer Simulations,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 6, no.020117, pp.1-11, Oct 2010.
[26] Jacquelyn J. Chini, Adrian Madsen, Elizabeth Gire, N. Sanjay Rebello, and Sadhana Puntambekar, “Exploration of factors that affect the comparative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives in an undergraduate laboratory,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 8, no.010113, pp. 1-12, Apr 2012.
[27] Homeyra R. Sadaghiani, “Using multimedia learning modules in a hybrid-online course in electricity and magnetism,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 7, no. 010102, pp.1-7, Mar 2011.
[28] N. D. Finkelstein, W. K. Adams, C. J. Keller, P. B. Kohl, K. K. Perkins, N. S. Podolefsky, and S. Reid, “When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 1, no. 010103, pp. 1-8, Oct 2005.
[29] S. B. McKagan, W. Handley, K. K. Perkins, and C. E. Wieman, “A Research-Based Curriculum for Teaching the Photoelectric Effect,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 77, no.1, pp. 87-94, 2009.
[30] S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, M. Dubson, C. Malley, S. Reid, R. LeMaster, and C. E. Wieman, “Developing and Researching PhET simulations for Teaching Quantum Mechanics,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 76, no.1, pp. 406-417, Jan 2008.
[31] Tomi Jaakkola, Sami Nurmi, and Koen Veermans, “A comparison of students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 71-93, 2011.
[32] Z.C. Zacharia, “Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 23, no.2, pp.120-132, Apr 2007.
[33] Ariel Paul, Noah Podolefsky and Katherine Perkins, “Guiding Without Feeling Guided: Implicit Scaffolding through Interactive Simulation Design,” AIP Conf. Proc., vol. 1513, no. 1, pp. 302-305, Jan 2013.
[34] Guadalupe Martinez, Francisco L. Naranjo, Angel L. Perez, and Maria Isabel Suero, “Comparative study of the effectiveness of three learning environments: Hyper-realistic virtual simulations, traditional schematic simulations and traditional laboratory,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 7, no. 020111, pp. 1-12, Oct 2011.
[35] W. K. Adams, A. Paulson, and C. E. Wieman, “What levels of guidance elicit engaged exploration with interactive simulations?,” AIP Conf. Proc., vol. 1064, pp. 59-62, Jul 2008.
[36] Knight, “The vector knowledge of beginning physics students,” Phys. Teach., vol. 33, pp. 74-77, Feb1995.
[37] Sergio Flores, Stephen E. Kanim, and Christian H. Kautz, “Student use of vectors in introductory mechanics,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 460-468, Apr 2004.
[38] Beichner .R., “Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 750-762, 1994.
[39] Andrew Duffy, Boston University, http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/Ejs/.
[40] Easy Java simulations, http://www.um.es/fem/Ejs.
[41] Balasubrahmanya Hegde and B. N. Meera, “How do they solve it? An insight into the learner’s approach to the mechanism of physics problem solving,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., vol.8, no. 010109, pp. 1-9, Mar 2012.