Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 17, Issue 1, Article 1 (Jun., 2016) Achmad SAMSUDIN, Andi SUHANDI, Dadi RUSDIANA, Ida KANIAWATI and Bayram COŞTU Investigating the effectiveness of an active learning based-interactive conceptual instruction (ALBICI) on electric field concept Previous Contents Next

Methods

Participants

The seven pre-service physics teachers (three females and four males, whose ages were average of 21 years-old) were involved in this study as samples. They were introduced from different cities and re-registered in physics course as Educational University (a pseudonym). The respondent was purposely chosen from a class and all pre-service physics teachers participated in the study willingly. All of the pre-service physics teachers took to the pre- and post-tests and they were divided into two groups. The reason why we decided to divide the participants into two groups was based on pre-test results through FCCI. The pre-test result reported that first group had more comprehensions in minds without misconceptions conditions rather than second group.  The teaching duration was four 50-minutes periods. The ALBICI model was utilized in this study will be described in detail.

The test items of FCCI instrument

To measure pre-service physics teachers’ conceptual change before and after to the intervention through ALBICI model, a Field Conceptual Change Inventory (FCCI) involving of thirteen test items was utilized by using a qualitative approach. The authors have developed and published the test items of the instrument at international journal (Samsudin, Suhandi, Rusdiana, Kaniawati, & Coştu, 2015). The test items were organized in the form of semi open-ended named as three-tier test items. The Figure 3 shows an example of test item on electric field.

The figure below shows a hollowed conductor ball which initially is charged positive (+) and is apportionment on its surface. Then a positive charge +Q  is closed to a conductor ball as figure. Where is the direction of electric field in the center of ball after the positive charge +Q is closed to the conductor ball?
To left. To right. To upper. To under. The field is zero.
Explanation: There is no electric field in inner part of conductor ball as long as there is no a charged object in the hollowed conductor ball. Because the conductor ball’s charge is positive and is closed to a positive charge so the electric interaction of them repelled each other. Because a charge in the ball is positive and the second charge (+Q)  also is positive so the electric field should be to left. As consequence two balls repelled each other.   Because a positive charge (+Q), which is closed to the conductor ball, will induced the conductor ball to be negative charge so that attracted iteraction occurred.  ......................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................. The rating of confidence for the chosen answers: a) Sure     b) Not sure   c) Do not know

Figure 3.A FCCI instrument test item on electric field concept.

As it can be seen from Figure 3, the FCCI is divided into three tiers. The first tier is in the format of multiple choices, the second tier is in the format of semi open-ended and the last tier is confidence rating for instants: “sure”, “not sure” and “do not know” (as agreed in the several literatures, such as, Caleon & Subramaniam, 2010; Peşman & Eryılmaz, 2010; Kutluay, 2005; Vatansever, 2006). In the first tier, the correct answer was given and four others choices were incorrect answers which dealt with misconceptions about electric field concepts. In the second tier, pre-service physics teachers chose their explanations connected to their responses in the first tier as in the references (Maloney, O’Kuma, Hieggelke, & Heuvelen, 2001; Dega, 2012; Vatansever, 2006; Allain, 2001). Additionally, pre-service physics teachers were able to write their explanations apart from papers which have already been presented to them. Consequently, they were able to comprise their conceptions freely in the fifth-blank. As a final point, in the third tier, pre-service physics teachers selected confidence rating correlated with their answers in terms of analyzing the consistency of their ideas in the previous tiers (the first and the second tiers). All test items of the instrument were initially experimented on thirty pre-service physics teachers who were registered in the physics course.  The FCCI was validated by a panel comprising of three physics educators. The newest format of the instrument test was administered, in identical form, to the respondents one semester before (pre-test) and after the intervention (post-test) on the study of physics education. At a first glance, using the same test as pre-test and post-test, it could be seen as some weaknesses. One of the most weaknesses is the time duration between pre-test and post-test. The time duration is plausible for pre-service physics teachers to be unable to remember the instrument test, i.e. whereas post-test was administered three months after pre-test. Taking into description the discrepancy of pre-service physics teachers’ performance in the pre-test and post-test, conceptual change was perceived from the changes in their responses from pre-test to post-test and the changes in their misconceptions from pre-test to post-test as coding based.

We also analyzed each test items (thirteen test items in the FCCI) in terms of learning indicators and Anderson & Krathwohl (2005)’s Taxonomy, is detailed in Table I.

Table 1 .FCCI test instrument specification on electric field concept

Learning Indicators (LI)	Anderson’s Cognitive Aspects
	C2	C3	C4
Analyzing the correlation between several electric charged objects’ positions and Coulomb force.			✓
Analyzing the correlation between several electric charged objects’ positions and electric field.			✓
Predicting the movement of a charged object which is caused by the effect of a uniformed electric field.		✓
Predicting a potential energy of charged object in the uniformed electric field.		✓
Comparing several electric forces which are located in the uniformed electric field.			✓
Identifying the electric field direction for electric charged-conductor ball.	✓
Comparing sum works of electric charged object in the equipotential area.			✓
Comparing the electric field for several electric charged objects.			✓
Translating the graphic correlation of electric potential toward distance into electric field toward distance.	✓
Determining the graphic correlation of electric potential and distance.	✓
Distinguishing the highest electric field of several positions in the lines of equipotential areas.			✓
Distinguishing the lowest electric field of several positions in the lines of equipotential areas.			✓
Analyzing the correlation of electric field, electric potential and electric potential energy.			✓

 Note: C2, C3 and C4 stand for understanding, applying and analyzing on Anderson et al.’s Taxonomy (1999)

The Active Learning Based-Interactive Conceptual Instruction (ALBICI) Model

Among conceptual change teaching strategies, researchers decided to utilize the Active Learning Based-ICI model, based on our perceptions of its relevance for the educational perspectives in this research. All phases in the ALBICI model supported enhancing of pre-service physics teachers’ understanding, such as, 1) conceptual focus (before the ALBICI model was implemented, the electric field concepts are introduced via interactive multimedia), 2) use of texts (reading comprehensions several textbooks and e-books before the intervention and designing the concept maps), 3) research-based materials (the use of ICI learning model with PEODE*E tasks on electric field contexts through students’ worksheet and explorations’ sheet), and 4) classroom interactions (peer instruction through collaborative grouped activities in the model). We established the learning activities about electric field’s thinking schema (see Appendix A and B) which are detailed in Table II.

Table II .Teaching activities in the ALBICI model with PDEODE*E tasks and their context

The ALBICI model	PDEODE*E Tasks			Context
Teaching Activity I	Task 1	Part 1		Coulomb law (The interaction of charged objects: plastic ruler is rubbed with plastic and wool)
		Part 2		Coulomb law (The interaction of charged objects: rubber ruler is rubbed with plastic and wool).
Teaching Activity II	Task 2			Static electric field for several shapes (i.e. single point, double points, and parallel plats) with an electron gun.
Teaching Activity III	Task 3a	Part 1	Parallel plat Capacitors (different distance and area for two plat capacitors).
		Part 2	Parallel plat Capacitors (different dielectric materials between two plat capacitors: i.e. vinyl chloride, wood and glass).
Teaching Activity IV	Task 4	Part 1	Ohm law (Analyzing about the combinations of series’ resistors).
		Part 2	Ohm law (Analyzing about the combinations of parallels’ resistors).
Teaching Activity V	Task 5	Part 1	Kirchhoff law (a simple electric circuit of serial lamps).
		Part 2	Kirchhoff law (a simple electric circuit of parallel lamps).
		Part 3	A serial circuit of batteries.
Teaching Activity VI	Task 6		Wheatstone bridge circuit.
Teaching Activity VII	Task 7	Part 1	RC circuit (Recharging the capacitors).
		Part 2	RC circuit (Discharging the capacitors).

Note: ^aAppendix A and B are related to Task 3.

Prior to the ALBICI model, the FCCI instrument was given to pre-service physics teachers to depict their thoughtfulness to the core knowledge of the activities (i.e., electric field). Afterwards, completing the tasks, the FCCI was then re-given to participants if they show understanding of the concept. The teaching intervention was administered to groups of students (a total 2 groups: 1st group consisted of three (S1, S2 and S3) and 2nd group consisted of four (S4, S5, S6 and S7)). At the beginning of each teaching activity, the PDEODE*E tasks and the Exploration sheet was handed out to each students. Pre-service physics teachers worked collaboratively in each group, and they filled in their worksheet independently. The teaching activities were introduced during a normal scheduled class of four 50-minutes duration—the instruction language was non-English. The instruction was given by the first author; hence we assumed that he expertly engaged in the ALBICI model. He was able to interact with the groups’ members, especially discussions phase in the PDEODE*E tasks. In other words, discussions phase were guided by the lecturer properly. In the second discussion (D) and exploring phase (E*), the lecturer visited the two groups, requested some follow-up questions and gave some suggestions to lead students.

ALBICI model with PDEODE*E tasks was obtained from the previous development of learning strategy on vector field. One of the vector field concepts, electric field, consisted of seventh main concepts such as: Coulomb law, static electric field, parallel plat capacitors, Ohm law, Kirchhoff law, Wheatstone bridge circuit and RC circuit. Here, we only explain in detail about parallel plat capacitors as an example (Task 3, see Appendix A & B) as follows:

1. Predict (P): The pre-service physics teachers predicted which was related to parallel plat capacitors’ concepts individually.
2. Discuss (D): They discussed about the results of personal prediction with his or her group’s members to obtain group’s predictions related to parallel plat capacitors’ concepts.
3. Explain (E): A representative of each group explained their discussion to whole students so that the other group knew the concepts which have been discussed.
4. Observe (O): Pre-service physics teachers in each group performed and observed parallel plat capacitors phenomenon qualitatively to predict and to validate their group’s prediction.
5. Discuss (D): They discussed in each group for a second time ( twice) to resolve contradiction between prediction and observation qualitatively.
6. Explore (E*): Using exploration sheet, they explored the phenomenon of parallel plat capacitors quantitatively and qualitatively. Then, they re-discussed with their group members to correlate, analyze and criticize the result from earlier phases.
7. Explain (E): A representative student in each group explained for a second time about the results findings and conclusions from exploration which was obtained by presenting the data and conceptual analysis.

Procedures for Data Analysis

The test items was analyzed using five criteria (given in Table III) to categorize the pre-service physics teachers’ responses. Table III detailed the criteria. Similar criteria were used in the literature (Samsudin, Suhandi, Rusdiana, Kaniawati, & Coştu, 2015).

After that, all the drawings were coded and then scored using the Barman’s (1997) DAST Checklists. To address inter-rater reliability issues, all drawings were scored by two colleagues who have extensive background and experience with coding and scoring such drawings. Frequency analysis was completed on the scores of subsets examining the differences between the scores given by the researchers to the drawings. The instrument’s reliability is KR-20 = .72. The validity was determined via review of drawings by authors. The second part of questionnaire regarding source of scientist image was measured by ANOVA to represent descriptive analysis and any statistical differences between groups. The reliability of the instrument was documented at .89.   

Table III. Criteria for analyzing the three-tier test items in FCCI

Criterion	Descriptions of Criterion
Misconception (M)	Tier I and Tier II are wrong and confidence rating is “sure”.
Understanding (U)	Tier I and Tier II are correct and confidence rating is “sure”.
Partial Understanding (PU)	Following responses are categorized in PU. 1) Both of two (Tier I and Tier II) are correct but respondents chose confident rating “not sure” or “do not know” (hesitating position/un-stable conceptions). 2) Only one (Tier I or Tier II) is correct and respondents chose confidence rating “sure” or “not sure” or “do not know”.
No Understanding (NU)	Tier I and Tier II are wrong and the confidence rating is “not sure” and “do not know”.
Uncodable (UC)	Respondent do not fulfill (response) all or part of tiers in instrument test items.

As it can be seen in the Table III, pre-service physics teachers’ responses were examined thematically and the following criteria were used: Understanding (U), Partial Understanding (PU), Misconceptions (M), No Understanding (NU) and Uncoddable (UC). Pre-service physics teachers’ conceptions and misconceptions were elicited from three-tier test items. We also presented changes of pre-service physics teachers’ conceptions in order to see conceptual change before and after the ALBICI model. Using the changes, we also identified different schema on changing pre-service physics teachers’ understanding or misconceptions.