Investigating the effectiveness of an active learning based-interactive conceptual instruction (ALBICI) on electric field concept

More than a few years ago, researchers around the world have been established considerable attention on active learning (e.g. Hillyard, Gillespie & Littig, 2010; Buckley, Pitt, Norton, & Owens, 2010; Meltzer & Thornton, 2011; Smith & Sodano, 2011). Repeatedly supposed as a fundamental change from traditional teaching to active learning model, the issue often differentiates research interest among researchers in higher education (e.g. Prince, 2004; Smith & Lytle, 1999; Fabry, 2010; Reed, Kennett, Lewis, & Lucas, 2011). Moreover, Karaçam & Digilli Baran (2015) stated that several negative effects of traditional approach on students’ performance about electricity and due to traditional approach, students’ conceptual understandings are distinguished. Physics education members thought that alternatives teaching models to promote conceptual understanding in higher education, even though active learning was esteemed as educational trends by other incredulous members (e.g. Başer, 2006; Hsu, Wu, & Hwang, 2008; Etherington, 2008).

“Why is active learning effective to promote conceptual understanding for pre-service physics teachers?” and “How does it differ from traditional physics education learning which was persisted questions by incredulous physics education members?” They assumed that physics education learning has already been “active” through coursework, homework and laboratory activities as usual. Moreover, incredulous physics education members did not understand how to utilize active learning in physics education context. They expected that active learning seems as traditional teaching and it might not be effective to promote conceptual understanding in higher education setting. These cases occurred because physics education members did not seek the active learning literatures for proving the problems.

Based on several references (e.g. Prince, 2004), instructional methods that actively engage students in the learning process are generally defined as active learning. Briefly, active learning entails pre-service physics teachers to do meaningful learning activities and think about what they are doing (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). However this meaning includes that traditional teaching activities such as homework and doing some tasks, actually active learning which refers to activities that are presented into the class. Pre-service physics teachers’ activities and engagement are the main fundamentals of active learning in the instructional process. The traditional lectures where pre-service physics teachers inactively obtain knowledge from the lecturer is contrasted to active learning which facilitate pre-service physics teachers to engage and active in the learning processes.

Many active learning models have been utilized in the higher education level as reported in several references (e.g. Prestridge, 2014; Cambell & Monk, 2015; Hébert & Hauf, 2015), however; there have been few studies (Kaczynski, Wood, & Harding, 2008, Saunders, Brake, Griffiths, & Thornton, 2004) related to utilizing these models in physics’ course. There are limited studies about electricity concepts in higher education level. Hence, we especially used electric field in Physics course to be implemented an Active Learning Based-Interactive Conceptual Instruction (ALBICI) model with PEODE*E tasks. The ALBICI model with PEODE*E tasks we used is very useful to promote conceptual understanding for pre-service physics teachers, because all phases in the model supported enhancing students’ understanding, such as, 1) conceptual focus (concepts are introduced through multimedia before the ALBICI model was utilized), 2) use of texts (reading many textbooks and e-books before the intervention), and concept maps design, 3) research-based materials (the use of ALBICI with PEODE*E tasks on electric field contexts), and 4) classroom interactions (peer instruction through collaborative grouped activities in the model). An example of the ALBICI model with PDEODE*E tasks was given in the Appendix A and B. The model was assumed as a “house” for PDEODE*E tasks where the students actively involved in changing their misconceptions and enhance their conceptual understanding.

As described by Samsudin, Suhandi, Rusdiana, & Kaniwati (2015), PDEODE*E tasks utilized in the ALBICI model has originally been developed and it consists of seventh steps. Firstly, “P (Prediction)” phase, a conceptual phenomenon was presented to pre-service physics teachers via sheets and invited them to write a prediction independently, and to confirm their prediction. Secondly “D (Discuss)” phase, in each group, the pre-service physics teachers discussed in their groups and shared their thinking to group-mates. Thirdly “E (Explain)”phase, pre-service physics teachers in each group probed in order to grasp a conciliation and deduction about phenomenon given in the first phase, and present their concepts to other groups through whole class discussions. Then, they worked in groups to accomplish a hands-on experiment and separately recognized their observations. Fourth “O (Observe)” phase, the pre-service physics teachers observed changes in the phenomenon and the lecturer lead them to concentrate on observations relevant concepts. Fifth “D (Discuss)” phase, the pre-service physics teachers were requested to reconcile their predictions with the genuine observations made in the earlier step. Here, the students were asked to analyze, compare, contrast and criticize their classmates in the groups. In the sixth “E* (Explore)” phase, the students were facilitated to explore the concepts deeper and more comprehensive way. The E* phase embedded into PDEODE as previous version (e.g. Coştu, 2008; Coştu, Ayas, & Niaz, 2010; Coştu, Ayas, & Niaz, 2012; Savender-Kolari, 2004; Kolari-Savender, 2005) eliminated a few disadvantages and empowered. Furthermore, we utilized exploration sheet (E*) separately, to be explored the concept in order to change students’ misconceptions towards scientific conceptions. Lastly “E (Explain)” phase, the pre-service physics teachers confronted all discrepancies between observations and predictions. At this point, the students had to attempt and determine any contradictions. The role of the lecturer in all phases was to challenge student/s and to organize proper discussions in each group or in the whole class.

Facilitating conceptual change in pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions, the ALBICI model with PDEODE*E tasks was grounded upon Conceptual Change Model (CCM) proposed by Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog (1982). The changing process as follows; 1) dissatisfaction of students with the existed concept, 2) plausibility of new concept, 3) intelligibility of new concept and 4) fruitfulness of new concept. Those necessities succeed by tracking the ALBICI model based on CCM. The ALBICI model preserved four phases such as 1) conceptual focus, 2) use of texts, 3) research-based materials and 4) classroom interactions. As it seen the steps, the teaching model is adjacent to CCM. Elucidating the relation between two models, in the first phase, conceptual focus, pre-service physics teachers realized and felt dissatisfactions about their earlier conceptions. To achieve this, we operated multimedia computer consisting of simulations and videos. Multimedia computer which were showed consisted of many new concepts such as Gauss law simulation, charged object simulation, electric field interaction between positive and negative charged objects through vector field simulation, etc. Moreover, multimedia computer also shows many video related to electric field such as electric potential video, experiment about electric dipole with charged-fluid material, vector of electric field in electric wire and so on. They invited the pre-service physics teachers to learn more about the concepts, as consequence, they feel that their existed concept did not enough to explain the new concepts that can be shown an example in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Multimedia computer based in the first phase of the ALBICI model

In the second phase, use of text, we aimed to providing the pre-service physics teachers to see their dissatisfaction about concept and their problems or misconceptions. To achieve this, we utilized textbooks and concept maps. The pre-service physics teachers read some textual material (books and e-books) about electric field before the concept mapping. After they learn about electric field, they construct a concept map in each sub concepts both individually and groups. Through designing concept mapping, lecturer (the first author of the paper) guided and advised the pre-service physics teachers to enhance their existed-knowledge because lecturer knew that they had several problems about their earlier conceptual understanding. Pre-service physics teachers made seven concept maps related to seven sub-concepts on electric field concepts such as concept maps about charged-objects and their interactions, vector of electric field from two and more charged-objects’ interactions, parallel plat capacitor, etc. As can be seen in Figure 2: an example about charged-object sub-concept from student’s concept map.

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.Student’s Concept map ((a) originally one and (b) translated in English) on electric field after reading textual materials made in the second phase of the ALBICI model

In the third and fourth phase, we provide other necessities to promote conceptual change, namely conceptual conflict, plausibility, intelligibility and fruitfulness of new concept by using PDEODE*E tasks based on POE. In the literature, a wide variety of strategies have been used to provide conceptual change such as “anomaly”, “Socratic dialogue”, “prediction-observation-explanation (POE)” strategies and so forth. The anomaly strategy uses unexpected events for students to provide conceptual conflict (e.g. Chinn & Brewer, 1993; Chen, Pan, Sung, & Chang, 2013), whereas Socratic dialogue employs conversation that encourages learners to recall existing concepts and then guides the learners to recognize inconsistencies in their deduction process (e.g. Chang, Lin, & Chen, 1998; Chang, Wang, Dai, & Sung, 1999; Chang, Sung, Wang, & Dai, 2003). Those methods emphasize only on the learner-perceived conceptual conflict provided by coaching with instructor/s involvement seems as passive learning activities. However; conceptual conflict, students’ or their classmates actively involved do not necessarily empower active learner investigations (e.g. Chen, Pan, Sung, & Chang, 2013; Eryilmaz, 2002; Liégeois, Chasseigne, Papin, & Mullet, 2003). Conversely, the POE strategy facilitates the reorganization of knowledge structures by exposing learners to cognitive conflict through inconsistencies between existing knowledge structures and the new concepts (e.g. Gunstone & White, 1981; Coştu, Ayas, & Niaz, 2012). The experience is a sequence of prediction, observation, and explanation activities that scaffold self-explanation in conceptual learning. The scaffolding mechanisms that prompt for self-explanation might present the greatest benefits in producing deep understanding by removing misconceptions (e.g. Chen, Pan, Sung, & Chang, 2013; Chi, 1996; Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann, & Glaser, 1989). Moreover, several physics educations experts such: Ding, Chabay, Sherwood, & Beichner. (2006); Furio & Guisasola (1998); Galili (1995); Tornkvist, Pettersson, & Transtromer (1993) stated that the students’ conceptual knowledge on electricity and magnetism concepts occurred misconceptions. The POE strategy constructs a scenario of conceptual conflict for adaptation and reorganization of knowledge structures by engaging a learner to observe, comprehend, and then self-explain a new concept within an interactive learning environment.

In this study, researchers only focused on electric field views, particularly the concepts about Coulomb law, static electric field, parallel plat capacitors, Ohm law, Kirchhoff law and RC circuit. The concept of electric field is very important for students for being “back-bone” of the concept of electricity (Samsudin, Suhandi, Rusdiana, Kaniawati, & Coştu, 2015). Furthermore, this concept is very necessary to be learned by pre-service physics teachers because the concept of electric field is very abstract and complex (e.g. Dori & Belcher, 2005; Cheng, Lin, Chang, Li, Wu, & Lin, 2014). Furthermore, those concepts are often founded several misconceptions on students’ minds, for instance: 1) “A charged object put in the uniformed electric field, it will stay on its position or it does not move”. This misconception often occurred in students’ mindset because they do not think that electric force acted on the object, as consequence the object will move. 2) “The velocity of current flow is determined very fast”. Students mostly think that current flow fast because they attempt to implement their pre-conceptions about electric switch which turn on and the lamp suddenly is on. They were convinced that the electric current flow very fast. Unfortunately, we should analyze in microscopic view that the electric current flows very slow. The phenomenon is entitled “drift speed”. The velocity of drift current is closed to 10-5 up to 10-4 m/s. Why does it happen? Because the wire has randomly electric dipole before the voltage is connected. After the voltage is connected to the circuit, all electric dipole will be oriented by electric field which is produced by the different voltage. As consequence the electric dipole will be re-constructed well-ordered.

Electric field concept mastery has been achieved through ALBICI model which constitutes experimental exploration guided by various learning sources such as text books, multimedia computer, and research material, described in the previous paragraphs. On that account, it was expected that pre-service physics teachers showed a sound understanding about electric field and related concepts.

The purpose of this study was to develop the ALBICI model with PDEODE*E tasks that is able to promote conceptual change and to investigate its effectiveness on pre-service physics teachers’ understanding about electric field.