Students’ Perception of Vector Representation in the Context of Electric Force and the Role of Simulation in Developing an Understanding
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.
[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.
[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.
@article{"International Journal of Business, Human and Social Sciences:69026", author = "S. Shubha and B. N. Meera", title = "Students’ Perception of Vector Representation in the Context of Electric Force and the Role of Simulation in Developing an Understanding", 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.", volume = "9", number = "2", pages = "501-9", }
