 |
Asia-Pacific Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 11, Issue 1, Article 16
(Jun., 2010) |
Research in science education has revealed that students in science courses have many alternative ideas of the basic ideas of science (Driver, Guesne, & Tiberghien, 1985; Driver, Squires, Rushworth, & Wood-Robinson, 1994). While we can find many research reports on students’ understanding of the basic mechanics ideas in physics, research on students’ ideas in electromagnetism is scarce (Duit, 2009). In one of these studies based upon 214 college students (ages 19-20), Maloney (1985) found that many students believed that magnetic poles were charged, with the north pole being positively charged. He reported that classroom instruction had little effect on changing these ideas. Maloney, O’Kuma, Hieggelke and Van Heuvelen (2001) report that some introductory physics students in colleges and universities use the electric effects of electrical charges when they reason about the magnetic effects of currents; they think that the wire with the larger current exerts a larger force on the other wire in the context of two long, straight current-carrying wires parallel to each other. They found that some students believed that stationary charges experienced a force in a magnetic field, and many had learning difficulties on the topic of electromagnetic induction. Albe, Venturini and Lascours (2001) found that the 64 physical science undergraduates in their study had difficulties understanding the characteristics of a magnetic field, and that the magnetic flux formula was not applied correctly in simple cases. Galili (1995) found that many high school students thought that Newton’s third law was not applicable to electromagnetism. Bagno and Eylon (1997) report that misconceptions in one physics topic, such as understanding of speed and velocity in mechanics, may cause difficulties in students’ understanding of electromagnetism. They claim that the statements like “induced current is such as to oppose the change of magnetic flux that produced it” might be misinterpreted as the induced current is in the opposite direction of the magnetic field that produced the change of magnetic flux. Loftus (1996) suggests that students’ explanations of electromagnetic induction demonstrations with an electromagnet may be explained by a common structure; including an agent such as an electromagnet, an object such as ring, bulb or water, and one-way routes between them such as force, charge, heat or light (Andersson, 1986). Saglam and Millar (2006) found that many junior and senior level high school students had misunderstandings and inconsistencies that suggested they did not have a coherent framework of ideas about electromagnetism. Common student errors consisted of “confusing electric and magnetic field effects, seeing field lines as indicating a ‘flow,’ using cause-effect reasoning in situations where it does not apply and dealing with effects associated with the rate of change of a variable” (p. 543). In general, the literature suggests that students have a poor understanding of the basic ideas of electromagnetism. It appears that students need effective instructional designs to grasp the basic ideas of electromagnetism.
Problem-based learning (PBL) is one of the student-centred instructional approaches used for effective instruction in science education (Chin & Chia, 2004a; Chin & Chia, 2004b; Chin & Chia, 2006; Lee & Bae, 2008; Senocak, Taskesenligil, & Sozbilir, 2007; Soderberg & Price, 2003; Tarhan, Ayar-Kayali, Urek, & Acar, 2008). The approach assumes that knowledge is actively constructed by learners in a small collaborative group. Barrows and Tamblyn (1980) explain that “problem-based learning is the learning that results from the process of working toward the understanding or resolution of a problem. The problem is encountered first in the learning process!” (p. 1). The problems presented in PBL scenarios do not have a single correct solution, i.e., they are ill-structured. The students first summarise the information given in the scenario and state the problem. Then, they generate some hypotheses regarding possible solutions. Next, they identify the learning issues which are the knowledge deficiencies that should be researched during their self-directed learning. After the self-directed learning process, the students apply their new knowledge to the problem and evaluate the hypotheses they generated. Lastly, the students reflect on the knowledge gained. The role of the teacher (i.e., the tutor) is to help students learn the cognitive skills needed for problem-solving and collaboration (Evensen & Hmelo, 2000; Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Although there are examples of studies using the PBL approach in biology and chemistry education, the use of the approach in physics education is not very common. Therefore, there is a need to explore the effectiveness of the PBL approach in teaching physics concepts. Problem solving skills necessary for the resolution of ill-structured problems in the PBL approach include cognitive, metacognitive and motivational strategies. Therefore, successful problem solving involves some domain-specific knowledge, the control and monitor of cognitive processes and students’ feelings and interest in the problem (Mayer, 1998). It appears that students’ problem-solving skills need to be considered in interpreting the outcomes of the PBL approach (For example, see Anderson & Nashon, 2007, for the effect of physics students’ metacognition on the development of their conceptual understanding of kinematics).
Although there are many research methods such as concept mapping, interviews about instances and events, interviews about concepts and drawings developed to elicit these alternative ways of reasoning (White & Gunstone, 1992), written diagnostic questions have been the main way of collecting data from a large sample in a relatively short amount of time. A diagnostic question is a question that analyses an individual’s performance in order to locate its strengths or weaknesses in the subject tested. Many written diagnostic tests such as the Force Concept Inventory (Hestenes, Wells, & Swackhamer, 1992) and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism (Maloney, et al., 2001) include multiple-choice questions with five options. However, some researchers point to the value of collecting data regarding students’ confidence on diagnostic questions to gain more information about students’ cognition (Bowen & Roth, 1999; Caleon & Subramaniam, 2010; Hasan, Bagayoko, & Kelley, 1999; Odom & Barrow, 2007; Planinic, Boone, Krsnik, & Beilfuss, 2006; Potgieter, Malatje, Gaigher, & Venter, 2009). For example, students who are confident of an incorrect answer are more likely to hold onto their incorrect conception even if they are provided with some evidence indicating that their thinking is not scientifically correct (Reif & Allen, 1992).
The literature reviewed suggests that there is a need for research into students’ understanding of electromagnetism in the PBL context. Therefore, this study aims to explore PBL students’ understanding of the basic ideas of electromagnetism. The research questions that guided the investigation are: (1) how confident are PBL students in their knowledge of the fundamental ideas of electromagnetism?; (2) what are the motivational orientations and learning strategies used by the PBL method on physics students?; (3) is PBL in students’ performance on the topic of electromagnetism related to their motivational orientations and learning strategies?
