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

Findings and Discussion

The Table IV shows that the results of three-tier test items. All of students (namely; S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6 & S7) presented for the pre- or post- tests, they were completely extracted from the analyzing procedure.

Table IV. Students’ responses in each criterion and their changes from pre-test to post-test

No.	Understanding (U)		Misconceptions (M)		No Understanding (NU)		Partial Understanding (PU)		Uncodable (UC)
No.	Pre-test	Post-test	Pre-test	Post-test	Pre-test	Post-test	Pre-test	Post-test	Pre-test	Post-test
1	S7	S2, S5, S6, S7	S1, S2	S1	S3, S5	-	S4, S6	S3, S4	-	-
2	-	S1, S2, S3	S5, S6	-	S2, S4, S6, S7	S4	S3	S5, S6, S7	S1	-
3	-	-	S1, S5	S1, S4	S2, S4, S6, S7	S6, S7	S3	S2, S3, S5	-	-
4	-	S1	-	-	S3	S2	S2, S4, S5, S6, S7	S3, S4, S5, S6, S7	S1	-
5	-	-	S1	S1, S2, S4	S2, S4	-	S3, S5, S6, S7	S3, S5, S6, S7	-	-
6	S1, S7	S1, S3, S4	S2	-	S3, S6	S5, S7	S4, S5	S2	-	S6
7	S1	S1, S2, S3, S4, S6	S5	S5	S6, S7	-	S2, S3, S4	S7	-	-
8	S1, S7	S1, S7	S2, S3, S4, S5, S6	-	-	-	-	S2, S3, S4, S5, S6	-	-
9	S7	S7	S3, S5, S6	-	S4	S2	-	S3,S4, S5, S6	S1, S2	S1
10	-	S3	S2, S4, S5, S6	-	S3	S7	S7	S2, S4, S5, S6	S1	S1
11	S1, S5	S1, S2, S3, S5, S6	S4	-	S2, S3, S6, S7	-	-	S4, S7	-	-
12	S2	S2, S3, S4, S7	S3	-	S4, S6, S7	S5	S5	-	S1	S1, S6
13	S1, S5, S7	S1	-	-	S2, S4, S6	S2	S3	S3, S4, S5, S7	-	S6

Note: S1, S2, S3… refer to the particular students in the study

As it can be seen from the Table IV, most of the changes were positive ways. For example, number of the students gave responses that were classified in the understanding (U) and partial understanding (PU) category increased after the ALBICI intervention. Similarly, the Table IV reveals mostly positive conceptual changes, that is, number of the students gave responses that were classified into the misconceptions (M) category decreased after the ALBICI intervention. This means that the pre-service physics teachers changed their misconceptions towards scientific conceptions. On the other hand, only a few case (e.g. 7th three-tier test item especially S5), student’s responses were not changed over time in his misconception condition. This means that the ALBICI teaching model was inefficient to change students’ conceptions. Main reason of this issue should be that researchers had a limitation problem related to control and to handle whole psychological problems or incorrect students’ schema (i.e. students’ thinking, engagement in collaboratively grouped work and students’ motivations). As a consequence, a few pre-service physics teachers could not change their misconceptions toward scientific conceptions. Similar result could be seen in the conceptual change studies (e.g. Coştu, Ayas, & Niaz, 2012; Srivastava, John, Gosling & Potter, 2003; Dass, 2005).

Since the main research problem was to determine whether or not pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions change towards to scientific conceptions, the “Misconceptions (M)” category in the Table IV was detailed. Students’ responses were further analyzed in term of unveiling their misconceptions based on three-tier test (the FCCI) items of pre- and post- tests. These are presented in Table V.

Table V. Students’ misconceptions about electric field and their changes from pre-test to post-test

Students’ Misconceptions (M)a	Pre-Test	Post-Test	Conceptual changes from pre-test to post-test
M1b: The interaction between electrically charged objects by the Coulomb force is not considered a vector interaction.	S1 S2	S1 -	No change (0) Positive (┼)
M2: The interaction between electrically charged objects with the electric field is not considered a vector interaction.	S5 & S6	-	Partial positive (┼)
M3: Charged objects were initially stationary and be at a uniform electric field is considered to have no electric force.	S1 S5 -	S1 - S4	No change (0) Partial positive (┼) Negative (─)
M5: The electric forces that are located in several points scattered in a uniform electric field are considered equal.	S1 -	S1 S2 & S4	No change (0) Negative (─)
M6: The electric field in the centre of electric-charged conductor ball scattered on the surface is considered not zero.	S2	-	Partial positive (┼)
M7: The number of works a charged body is considered to be not influenced by displacement of equipotential surface.	S5	S5	No change (0)
M8: Magnitude of electric field for some electrically charged objects is considered to be influenced by the density of electric field lines.	S2, S3, S4, S5, S6	-	Partial positive (┼)
M9: Graph of the displacement and the electric potential in the electric field to the distance is perceived differently.	S3, S5, S6	-	Partial positive (┼)
M10: Graph of the displacement and the electric potential in the electric field to the distance is not considered to correlate with area under the curve.	S2, S4, S5, S6	-	Partial positive (┼)
M11: The magnitude of electric field in the several positions of equipotential area is considered to be the biggest value in the centre position or in the density positions of lines area neither that has the biggest of electric potential.	S4	-	Partial positive (┼)
M12: The magnitude of electric field is considered null if it is not located on equipotential lines.	S3	-	Positive (┼)

Note:
^aNumber 2 in M2 (Misconception 2) relate to learning indicator, namely LI.2 (given in the Table II) or questions number 2 (given in the Table IV)
^b A few misconceptions (e.g. M4) were not seen in the table because of lacks of students’ minds based on three-tier test items.

As it can be seen from the Table V, most of the changes in pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions were affirmative (positive or partial positive). Number of the students who held misconceptions decreased after the ALBICI intervention (M1, M2, M3, M5, M6, M7, M8, M9, M10, M11 and M12). This means that the pre-service physics teachers changed their misconceptions towards scientific conceptions. Conversely, the Table V reveals only two conceptual change was unfavorable way, that is, students (coding as S4) held misconceptions (M3) and (coding as S2 and S4) held misconception (M5) after the intervention although the students did not understand (no understanding) the concept before the intervention. The case about M3 and M5 was seen only two students. This originated from that only two students, from the participated students, did not actively involve not only exploration sheet but also the instruction and they had low motivation to do whole the tasks. Moreover, the students should be experienced group partner/s’ misconception/s and influenced and finally accepted their misconception/s. Negative change occurred when the students did have a high motivation and they did not serious to involve in group discussion and to fulfill all answers in sheets. The issue was noticed by the first author of the paper especially in the discussion phase of PDEODE*E tasks.

The Table V, interestingly, also showed that students’ misconceptions did not partly change after the intervention (M1, M3 and M5). Many studies on conceptual change (e.g. Lin, 2015; Shen, Liu, & Chang, 2015; Jan Kock, Taconis, Bolhuis, & Gravemeijer, 2013; Safadi & Yerushalmi, 2013; Boujaoude & Jurdak, 2010; Leppavirta, 2011; Engström, Gustafsson, & Niedderer, 2010; Çalık, Ayas, & Coll, 2007; Aufschnaiter, 2006; Friege & Lind, 2006; Vosniadou, 1994) found that conceptual change is a time consuming process because misconceptions are well embedded in students’ earlier mind schema.

Based on the data presented in the Table IV, possible types of changes from pre-test and post-test were constructed and given sample of pre-service physics teachers’ responses (see Table VI).

Table VI. Possible types of changes in criterion of students’ responses based on Table IV

Change’ Category	Pre-test		→	Post-test	Examples of Students’ Conceptions	Students & Test Number
Acceptable (A)	1	M	→	PU	S1 for no. 1: “At the pre-test, S1 considered that The interaction between electrically charged objects by the Coulomb force is not considered a vector interaction. After treatment, his understanding of the concept partially enhanced and when the post-test he response correctly on the first tier was the Coulomb law is considered a vector interaction that is the total forces should increase but its direction is still same. Unfortunately, his response for the second tier is the total forces should increase but its direction is the opposite one”.	S1 for (No. 1); S2 for (No. 6, 8 & 10); S3 for (No. 8 & 9); S4 for (No. 8, 10, & 11); S5 for (No.2, 8, 9 & 10); S6 for (No. 2, 8, 9 & 10).
	2	M	→	U	S2 for no. 1: “At the pre-test, S2 considered that The interaction between electrically charged objects by the Coulomb force is not considered a vector interaction. As consequence, he chose the wrong answer for first tier and second tiers and he chose “sure” for confidence rating. Afterward, his understanding about Coulomb law completely enhanced and when the post-test he chose correctly on the first and the second tiers was the Coulomb law is considered a vector interaction that is the total forces should increase but its direction is still same. Because of that, he unveiled his misconception toward scientific conceptions about Coulomb law”.	S2 for (No. 1); S3 for (No. 12).
	3	NU	→	PU	S4 for no. 9: “In the pre-test, S4 totally did not understand the concept about the graph of the displacement and the electric potential in the electric field to the distance is perceived differently. After the post-test, she held partial understanding and was able to response the correct answer in the first tier but the reason that was still incorrect”.	S2 for (No. 3); S3 for (No. 1 & 4); S4 for (No. 9 & 13); S6 for (No. 2); S7 for (No. 2 & 11).
	4	NU	→	U	S3 for no. 6: “During the pre-test, S3 thought that the electric field in the center of electric-charged conductor ball scattered on the surface is considered not zero, while the post-test, S3 realized to change her thinking about the hallowed-conductor ball concept that the electric field in the center of the conductor ball was zero because no charged part”.	S2 for (No. 2, 11); S3 for (No. 6, 10 11); S4 for (No. 12); S5 for (No. 1); S6 for (No. 7, 11); S7 for (No. 6 & 12).
	5	PU	→	U	S2 for no. 7: “During the pre-test, S2 response the correct answer on the first tier and his reason that were not correct on the second tier of the concept about the number of works a charged body is considered to be influenced by displacement of equipotential surface, surprisingly, while the post-test S2 chose a correct answers in the first and the second tier with the confidence rating was sure. It is indicated that his understanding enhance from partially to totally understanding about the work of a moving charged object in the uniformed electric charge is influenced by displacement of equipotential surface”.	S2 for (No. 7); S3 for (No. 2 & 7); S4 for (No. 6 & 7); S6 for (No. 1)..
Not Acceptable (NA)	1	M	→	NU	-	-
	2	NU	→	M	S4 for no. 5: “During the pre-test, S4 assumed that the concept about the electric forces that are located in several points scattered in a uniformed-electric field are considered equal and she chose wrong reason referred to the first tier, but she chose “did not know” in the third tier. It means that she did not understand the concept in the pre-test. Afterward, in the post-test she began to feel very confident when in answer to first and second tiers were incorrect. She changed confidence rating from “did not know” to “sure”, consequently she held negative change from no understanding to misconception”.	S2 for (No. 5); S4 for (No. 3 & 5).
	3	PU	→	M	-	-
	4	PU	→	NU	S5 for no. 12: “During the pre-test, S5 has chosen tier one correct answer, the reason was not appropriate and the confidence rating was chosen “did not know” about the magnitude of electric field is considered null if it is located on equipotential lines. It means that he had partial understanding in the pre-test. Unfortunately, in the post-test, he actually changed his answers for the second tier from the correct reason to incorrect reason based on the first tier’s answer. Afterward, he chose the confidence rating “not sure”.	S2 for (No. 4); S5 for (No. 6 & 12); S7 for (No. 10).
	5	U	→	PU	S5 for no. 13: “During the pre-test, S5 has chosen the correct answers in the first and second tiers and he chose the confidence rating “sure”. It means that he held understanding the concept about the relationship among electric field, electric potential and electric potential energy in the uniformed equipotential area is not considered to be influenced by direction. Unfortunately, in the post-test, he hesitated and changed his confidence rating from “sure” to “not sure”. As consequence, he held negative change from understanding the concept to partial understanding”.	S5 for (No. 13).
	6	U	→	NU	-	-
	7	U	→	M	-	-
No Change (NC)	1	PU	→	PU	S7 for no. 4: “During the pre-test until post-test, S7 response confidence rating “not sure” although her answered in the first and second tiers were correct about the potential energy of a moving charged object in the uniformed electric field is considered unchanged, so she did not change her understanding. For this case, no change process sound “moderate understanding” because she still held partial understanding and she has potency to enhance her knowledge”.	S3 for (No. 3, 5 & 13); S4 for (No. 1 & 4); S5 for (No. 4 & 5); S6 for (No. 4 & 5); S7 for (No. 4 & 5).
	2	NU	→	NU	S6 for no. 3: “On the concept about a charged object were initially stationary and was located at a uniform electric field is considered to have electric force, S6 did not change her conception because she did not understanding from pre-test until post-test. This case sounded “no understanding”. She chose incorrect answers for first and second tiers and response “do not know” the concept for third tier. She thought that only for moving charged object which had electric force”.	S2 for (No. 13); S4 for (No. 2); S6 for (No. 3); S7 for (No. 3).
	3	M	→	M	S1 for no. 5: “During the pre-test until post-test, S1 held misconception about the electric forces that are located in several points scattered in a uniform electric field are considered equal. The treatment could not change his misconception about this concept.”	S1 for (No. 1, 3, & 5); S5 for (No. 7).
	4	U	→	U	S7 for no. 8: “The S7 held good understanding on the concept about the magnitude of electric field for some electrically charged objects is not considered to be influenced by the density of electric field lines. She chose the correct answers for first and second tiers and never changed her response for confidence rating “sure”.	S1 for (No. 6, 7, 8, 11, 13); S2 for (No. 12); S5 for (No. 11); S7 for (No. 1, 8 & 9).

Note:
1) S1, S2… refer to the particular students in the study
2) M, U, PU, NU & UC stand for Misconceptions, Understanding, Partial Understanding, No Understanding and Uncodable respectively (see Table V)

The changing processes were divided into three categories in order to facilitate researchers in analyzing conceptual change that occurred in the pre-service physics teachers’ thinking. As it can be seen from the Table VI, four types of possible changes were observed in each change category (A, NA and NC). In the “A” category, students’ understanding on “electric field” changed from the pre-test to the post-test with some improvement. Pre-service physics teachers’ understanding enhanced as a result of the ALBICI model. Interestingly, in the “A” category, while pre-service physics teachers’ responses in misconception (M) criterion changed as partial understanding category, they did not change as understanding (U) criterion. This means that misconceptions are resistant to change and that conceptual change is a time consuming process as given in the plethora of earlier researchers (e.g. Vosniadou, 1994).

As for “NA” category, students’ understanding changed from pre-test to the post-test in unfavorable ways. For example, 13th changes, only one (S5) student’ responses in understanding (U) criterion changed as partial understanding (PU) category. Similarly; while S2 and S4 gave response in accordance partial understanding (PU) category in the pre- test, they changed their responses as misconceptions (M) category. In the same way; while S2, S5 and S7 response in accordance partial understanding (PU) criterion changed as no understanding (NU). This change especially can be seen in Table VI, was not occurred dramatic change. Although the changing process sounded negative but all change drop only one grade (i.e. negative change from understanding to partial understanding). The reasons of this case were explained at the bottom of the Table V.

As for “NC” category, pre-service physics teachers’ understandings were not changed from pre-test to the post-test. We mainly aimed, in this study, to changing students’ misconceptions towards scientific conceptions. However; students’ misconceptions did not change from the pre-test to the post-test after the intervention. This case should seem as conceivable, because pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions are deeply rooted into their existing knowledge structures (e.g. Srivastava, John, Gosling & Potter, 2003; Dass, 2005; Tuberty, Dass, & Windelspecht, 2011; Berti, Barbetta, & Toneatti, 2015).

In order to validate data from three-tier test items in FCCI, we sought other aspects of qualitative data derived from PDEODE*E students’ worksheet and exploration sheets in the ALBICI model. Only two qualitative data which are presented from seven activities, those are Coulomb law and parallel plat capacitors is presented in Table VII as follows:

Table VII. Students’ group responses on Coulomb law

Group Ia	Exploration Sheet: Part 1
	Group Prediction	Observation	Analysis	Research Comment
	The results of discussions, electrically neutral black ball which was closed by ruler which was rubbed with a woolen cloth (giving a negative charge to the ruler) so that the ruler is negatively charged, contrary to the rubbed with a plastic ruler.	The ruler which was rubbed with a plastic would repel the black ball and pull with the ruler was rubbed with a woolen cloth.	The ruler which was rubbed with a plastic would repel the black ball and pull with the ruler was rubbed with a woolen cloth. The distance also affect the deviation of the black ball, the closer a ruler with a black ball, the greater the deviation.	In the group prediction, students only predicted about influence of the charge object to other object without the interactions of them. Meanwhile, in the observation and analysis, they described about the interaction between black ball and ruler which was rubbed by woolen and plastic cloths.
	Exploration Sheet: Part 2
	If the rubber ruler was rubbed with a woolen cloth, it would repel each other because a ruler under loading and if rubber ruler was rubbed by a plastic, the ruler would be overloaded.	Rubber ruler was rubbed with plastic, would be mutual attraction and would repel each other when it was rubbed with the wool.	Based on the exploration results, the electric force-distance relationship was inversely proportional. This was shown by the further separation distance between two objects which were charged, the electric force would decrease.	The grouped prediction, observation and analysis were the same. This group has already learned to change their prediction from generally to precisely. Because a ball which was closed by a charged rubber ruler would be repeal.
Group IIb	Exploration Sheet: Part 1
	Group Prediction	Observation	Analysis	Research Comment
	The black ball hanging when was closed by ruler rubbed with a woolen cloth, would cause the black ball is moving closer to a ruler. This is because the ruler becomes positively charged. When plastic ruler rubbed with plastic, the ball going away from the ruler as ruler becomes a negative charge.	The black ball moving away from plastic ruler rubbed with plastic. While the ruler is rubbed with a woolen cloth, black ball moving toward a ruler.	The interaction between the ball with a ruler decreases when the distance between the two is quite far.	In the group prediction, students has already predicted about influence of the charge object to other object without the interactions of them. Because of that, the prediction, observation and analysis have the same result.
	Exploration Sheet: Part 2
	Rubber ruler was rubbed with a plastic, it would attract each other and the ruler would tend to negatively charged so as to attract the black ball. Rubber ruler was rubbed with wool. It would repel each other and the ruler was likely to be charged positive.	Rubber ruler which was rubbed with a woolen cloth would repel a ball and ruler rubber was rubbed with plastic, would pull the ball as well as the interaction was very weak.	Interaction between black balls and rubber ruler was weak because of tough rubber loaded.	This group only analyzed the distance factor but in the prediction, they have predicted and described about the interactions. It would be un-complete analysis or partial understanding.

Note:
^aIn this group, S1, S2 and S3 performed PDEODE*E tasks.
^bIn this group, S4, S5, S6 and S7 performed PDEODE*E tasks.

Table VIII. Students’ group responses on parallel plat capacitors

Group Ia	Exploration Sheet (See the Appendix B) Part I
	Group Prediction	Observation	Analysis	Research Comment
	The potential difference (ΔV) and the capacity of the capacitor (C) were affected by the distance (d) between the two plats. (ΔV) ∞ (d) and C ∞ 1/d.	The farther distance between the two plates, the potential difference will decrease and capacitance also decreases.	The capacitance is directly proportional to 1 / d (C ∞ 1/d). The potential difference is proportional to 1/d (ΔV) ∞ 1/d.	The prediction, observation, and exploration phases were the same. This grouped members explained by using the interaction of mathematics symbols properly to explain the concept about area and distance factors toward capacitance of capacitors.
	Exploration Sheet (See the Appendix B) Part II
	Glass> Wood> vinyl chloride (VC) > glass objects more positive than wood and VC.	There was a difference between a dielectric material is equal to the predicted results. Glass> Wood> VC. Due to the positive charge on the glass more than wood and PVC	Capacitance glass> capacitance wood> VC capacitance. The greatest capacitance was a combination of wood and VC.	Capacitance of glass> capacitance of wood> capacitance of VC. The greatest capacitance only between the combinations of wood-VC. Observation and exploration same as the input.
Group IIb	Exploration Sheet (See the Appendix B) Part I
	Group Prediction	Observation	Analysis	Research Comment
	The greater distance, the greater the electrical potential and decreasing the capacitance.	Observations indicate that the potential difference was not increased but rather decreased.	The greater distance, the potential decrease and the capacity decreases	This group focused to analyze the qualitative correlations between the electric potential and capacitance capacitor. Unfortunately, the result became worse because the conclusion was different with the prediction. It indicated that students held several misconceptions before the intervention.
	Exploration Sheet (See the Appendix B) Part II
	Sequence K from the greatest to the smallest values were Glass> VC> Wood.	In accordance with predictions C before being added dielectrics <C after a big plus dielectric with dielectric material timber> glass> VC. The reason is C ~ K. The difference between predicted to exploration because students do not know the estimated value of the dielectric material.	Could be analyzed that the C with a dielectric material wood> glass> VC and C of combined dielectric material between the wood-glass> VC-air. according to the K combination of K1 + K2 = K and C ~ K.	Results of observation, exploration and prediction are the same.

Note:
^aIn this group, S1, S2 and S3 performed PDEODE*E tasks.
^bIn this group, S4, S5, S6 and S7 performed PDEODE*E tasks.

As it can be seen from the Table VII and VIII as samples, the groups’ members had partial understanding on electric field concept especially in the task 3 about parallel plat capacitors, nevertheless the general result leads to the sound understanding for both groups after exploration sheet. It showed that the ALBICI model with PDEODE*E tasks could lead to a comprehensive understanding of the concepts. The pre-service physics teachers who initially hold misconceptions and no understanding of electric field concepts showed sound understanding of the concept after utilizing and exploring concepts with the sheets. The changing process performed by the pre-service physics teachers was affirmative especially fruitfulness principle referred to Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog (1982). The conceptual change mostly occurred because pre-service physics teachers realized that their earlier conceptions (mind’s schema) were not enough to explain and to explore the concepts. As a consequence, they needed new knowledge to re-conceptualize their previous schema from misconceptions to scientific conceptions (e.g. Coştu, Ayas, & Niaz, 2012; Coştu, Ayas, & Niaz, 2010, Coştu, Ayas, Niaz, Unal, & Çalık, 2007; Aydin, 2012). Therefore, the reconstruction of the concept was to build and to strengthen the existing conceptions. This was no misconceptions in both groups during the learning process. It indicates that the ALBICI model with PDEODE*E tasks did not lead the students' misconceptions. Unfortunately, as mentions in previous analysis, a few misconceptions still occurred in some pre-service teachers’ minds. We experienced that in teaching process the students changed their misconception towards scientific one, however; a few students (for example S4) hold misconception in the post-test. This indicated that student(s) was mostly affected his/her fellowships and their understanding. Hence, researchers who use group discussion or group works take into account the mentioned problem (e.g. Can & Boz, 2014; Coştu, Ayas, Niaz, 2012; Çalık, Ayas, & Coll, 2011; Enghag, Gustafsson, & Jonsson, 2009).