The Effect of the Conceptual Change Model on Conceptual Understanding of Electrostatics

Abstract

This research investigated the effectiveness of the conceptual change model (CCM) in addressing pre-service elementary teachers’ misconceptions and promoting their conceptual understanding of electrostatics. The participants were 55 pre-service elementary teachers enrolled in an elementary physical science course, 44 females and 11 males. An embedded mixed-methods approach was employed to help answer the two research questions put forward in this research. The results showed that the CCM moderately correlated with participants’ conceptual understanding of electrostatics. The data from the three open-ended questions showed that the CCM positively affected participants’ conceptions of the topic of electrostatics. The results of this research contribute to the literature on the effect of the conceptual change model in building conceptual understanding and minimizing pre-service teachers’ misconceptions about electrostatics. The results also showed that the phases of the CCM did not have the same effect on participants’ conceptual understanding of electrostatics. This information brings to the fore a discussion about the optimal approach to using the conceptual change instructional model.

1. Introduction

The prominent role that science in general and physics in particular plays in our modern society is well acknowledged. This has led to science and its sub-fields becoming more integral in the K-12 education curriculum [1]. The importance of science to the well-being and progress of society means that science education must become more practical and engaging [2,3]. Hands-on science may not be sufficient in training the scientists of the 21st century; minds-on science is also becoming imperative [4,5]. Students often do not accept what they hear in the science classroom; they occasionally construct their scientific understanding without direct input from teachers, which can lead to erroneous conceptions about some science concepts [6].

Therefore, the identification of these misconceptions effectively and dependably means they can be addressed early and is also an important step towards promoting conceptual understanding [7]. Conceptual understanding is essential in learning and is pertinent in science education because it is required to make sense of phenomena. It is the opposite; conceptual misunderstanding involves conceptions that are “wrong and flawed” [8], which form from misconceptions.

The Next Generation Science Standards [9] recommends that teachers and educators move away from teacher-centered instructional approaches toward focusing on scientific and engineering practices that utilize everyday tools to promote a deeper understanding of science concepts. The focus on fostering in-depth scientific understanding and student engagement means that science educators from institutions of higher education (IHE) and K-12 schools should work together to develop pedagogical models that offer rigorous, well-rounded science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. The interdisciplinary approach being promoted by the NGSS, and other researchers, encourages the cohesive teaching and learning of the four disciplines in an integrated manner instead of tackling them as separate and discrete subjects [9,10,11]. The demands of the global economy in the 21st century mean that the teaching of STEM has taken on new prominence; compelled by the changing workforce needs, there will be a dearth of STEM-equipped employees and educators globally [12].

1.1. Conceptual Change and Science Learning

Conceptual change is learning that changes a current conception. This involves a process that leads to a paradigm shift in an individual’s pre-instruction ideas [13]. Conceptual change is not instantaneous; it needs time to situate a learner’s current beliefs in the context of what is being learned, explore new ideas, reconcile new information with one’s current understanding, and explain phenomena using new ideas [14]. Research has pointed out that a straight swap of students’ pre-existing conceptions with new ones is not probable; conceptual change is a gradual/systematic replacement of scientific conceptions with accurate ones [15,16]. Conceptual change has been studied expansively in science education, where students frequently hold alternative conceptions about biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, and engineering that conflict with the scientifically accepted concepts that the educational curriculum seeks to inculcate. Conceptual change is vital in science education due to the many misconceptions students cultivate due to their daily life experiences, intuitive thinking, popular media, and ineffective science instruction [17].

1.2. Conceptual Change Model

The conceptual change model (CCM) is a six-phase instructional model where the students are urged to confront their pre-existing science concepts to change existing misconceptions with scientifically sound ones, according to [18]. The CCM is similar to the five-phase BSCS 5-E instructional Model, a learning cycle that takes students through the instructional phases of engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation. Figure 1 below shows a diagrammatic representation of the CCM. Each of the five phases contributes to the teacher’s coherent instruction and the learners’ formulation of a better understanding of scientific knowledge, approaches, and skills [19,20]. CCM is the foundational instructional technique applied in the teaching of the topic of electrostatics to participants enrolled in this research. The conceptual change model proposed by Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog [21] has emerged as the most prominent concept of conceptual change, evidenced by its continuous and extensive referencing in the literature related to the subject [14,15,22,23]. Science educators essentially acknowledge that the conceptual change model is an effective instructional technique. Though there are differing interpretations of how conceptual change comes about, the truth is that conceptual change occurs during learning science and is not a subject of dispute [14].

The conceptual change model situates students in a setting that urges them to confront their preconceptions by developing purposeful learning processes utilized by scientists for hypothesis testing, then work toward resolution and conceptual change [24]. The conceptual change model is comparable to other constructivist learning models such as the Generative Learning Model (GLM), a four-part learning model based on the process of generating and conveying meaning for motivations and events from an individual’s upbringing, capabilities, and experiences [25]. The CCM differs from the other constructivist learning models in its sixth phase, where students are encouraged to go beyond the lesson by posing new questions or ideas for further exploration [26]. The conceptual change process requires students’ active cognitive engagement instead of the direct transmission of knowledge [27].

This research was designed to produce a learning environment where participants engaged in learning activities to help their understanding of electrostatics concepts. Participants were taught using the six-phase conceptual change model to discover its effect on their conceptual understanding. During this process, the conceptual change learning model places the student in a mental wrestling state, cogitating between what they already know and the new information they are being taught. The cognitive conflict that ensues destabilizes students’ confidence in their existing conceptions through contradictory experiences, such as investigations that produce unexpected outcomes, and then compels them to replace their inaccurate preconceptions with scientifically accepted conceptions [28].

1.3. Theoretical Perspective and Review of Relevant Literature

The relevant literature on addressing misconceptions, building conceptual understanding, and the conceptual change model will also be presented to provide an overview of how this research is grounded in the literature. Research in the last few decades has revealed that numerous science teachers have ideas of science concepts analogous to misconceptions, just like most students [15]. Therefore, science education instructional practices should target the flawed alternative conceptions held by pre-service teachers to address the more significant challenge at the K-12 level. Some studies on student misconceptions and conceptual understanding of science topics have highlighted the need to address these issues [26,29]. The onus is, therefore, on science teacher educators or instructors to seek teaching methodologies that address misconceptions and drive conceptual change. The approach can be multifaceted, but in this research, the objective is to look at the issue from the perspective of instructional technique.

1.4. Purpose

This research aims to ascertain the effectiveness of the conceptual change model (CCM) in minimizing pre-service teachers’ misconceptions and promoting conceptual understanding of electrostatics. The research on the conceptual change model has revealed that it is an effective instructional approach to addressing misconceptions and building a conceptual understanding of science topics [14,30,31]. This research carried out an activity-based teaching exercise to determine the connection between the conceptual change model (CCM) and pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding of electrostatics. This research is not unique in its attempt to look at the CCM and its effect on conceptual understanding and misconceptions regarding science concepts.

This research is similar to the study of George Zhou because it aims to find out the effectiveness of the CCM in addressing participants’ misconceptions but is different in terms of the background of the participants (pre-service teachers) and the science topic of interest (electrostatics) [32]. The study by Santyasa et al. [26] focused on the CCM and conceptual understanding, but it also looked at a different science concept, i.e., force and motion, and the sample was high school students. Moynihan et al. used a guided inquiry method to ascertain its effect on lower secondary school students’ misconceptions and conceptual understanding of electrostatic forces [33]. However, this study is unique because it looked at the effect of the CCM on pre-service teachers’ misconceptions and conceptual understanding of electrostatics. Therefore, this research filled a gap by adding to the current literature findings on the effect CCM had on pre-service teachers’ misconceptions and conceptual understanding of electrostatics.

An open-ended questionnaire was designed to qualitatively elicit participating pre-service teachers’ views on how the CCM aided in their conceptual understanding of electrostatics. A one-group pre-test and post-test design were used to measure the effectiveness of the CCM in addressing misconceptions about electrostatics. In addition, a questionnaire using the five-point Likert scale was used to elicit students’ responses regarding the impact of CCM on their conceptual understanding of electrostatics. The research instruments described above provided answers to the following research questions:

• What is the connection between the conceptual change model (CCM) and the conceptual understanding of electrostatics?
• How effective is the CCM in addressing pre-service teachers’ misconceptions about electrostatics?

2. Materials and Methods

An embedded mixed-methods approach was used in data collection and analysis to answer the research questions. Mixed methods is a procedure for collecting, analyzing, and mixing or integrating quantitative and qualitative data at some stage of the research process within a single study [34,35]. The rationale for combining both data types is that neither quantitative nor qualitative methods are appropriate in their distinctive capacities to help answer all the research questions.

2.1. Participants

The sample for this research consisted of 55 pre-service elementary teachers enrolled in the elementary physical science course, 44 females and 11 males. The first author led the data collection and invited the participants to partake in the research. Participants were informed that participation is voluntary, and their permission was sought to use all collected data for research and writing purposes. The authors’ institution granted IRB approval for the conduction of the research. The data collection was based on a 3-week course module involving teaching elementary-level electrostatics to pre-service participants. Participants were primarily second- and third-year teacher education students with little physical science background. The research participants were studying to become elementary school teachers; hence, a strong physics background was not a prerequisite. They are required to enroll in an introductory physics course concurrently with the elementary physical science course used for this research. Still, at the time of this research, they had not taken any classes on electrostatics.

2.2. Procedure

Before the commencement of the module on teaching electrostatics, the participants were given a pre-test on electrostatics. The test questions are intended to help participants demonstrate accurate knowledge of electrostatics and analyze the reasons why a scientific claim might be valid or not. The questions on the test and items in the questionnaire include well-known misconceptions on electrostatics as wrong answer choices, which will help in analysis and data interpretation.

The pre- and post-test questions and the questionnaire were sourced from the literature on electrostatics-related research. Moynihan et al., in their study to help secondary students develop a conceptual understanding of electrostatics, found out that students had misconceptions about the role of charges in charging objects electrostatically [33]. This information guided the framing of questions 1 to 4 in the pre- and post-test. In their research to evaluate the student-teachers conception of static electricity, Ndihokubwayo et al. found that a number of eighth-grade students did not understand how charges are transferred from one object to another [36]. The findings from this study guided some questions, such as questions 5 and 7 in the test as well as items 3 and 4 in the questionnaire (see Questionnaire S3). Suma and Sadia investigated 12th-grade students’ prior knowledge of static electricity concepts using the Three-Tier Diagnostic Static Electricity Test (TTDSET) instrument [37]. Students found most of the concepts abstract and remote from their everyday lives. The rest of the test questions and items in the questionnaire are modified questions from the TTDSET instrument.

The electrostatics instruction commenced with a phenomenon-based learning approach where a “phenomenon” plugs into the natural desire of humans to make sense of their physical environment. This approach encourages students to observe phenomena; in this case, a video showing the interaction between different materials, such as a rod of glass rubbed with silk attracting small pieces of paper, was played to participants. Participants were tasked with conducting replication activities similar to what was in the video they had seen. Using the materials provided by the instructor, participants were asked to investigate the electrostatic interaction between paired materials. For example, they investigated the electrostatic interaction between a balloon and a wall by rubbing inflated balloons on their hair and taking it closer to the classroom wall. The teacher participants also investigated the electrostatic interaction between polyvinyl chloride, PVC pipes and empty soda cans as well as the electrostatic interaction between plastic rods and pieces of paper. The activities were carried out in a conceptual change model instructional environment. The CCM instructional approach required that participants wrote down their predictions and explanations about the interactions between PVC pipes and empty soda cans, plastic rods and pieces of paper, inflated balloons and grains of sand, and polyethylene and cotton. Participants worked in groups and they engaged in group discussions on their predictions and explanations before, during, and after each activity. In order to collect data on participants’ conceptual understanding of the electrostatics concepts, they were given pre- and post-questionnaires, which contained four statements on electrostatics knowledge. See Questionnaire S4 for the four statements.

2.3. Data Collection

Data collection was conducted using a one-group ten questions pre- and post-test (see Questionnaire S1) on participants’ baseline and post-instruction understanding of electrostatics. Three open-ended questions in the questionnaire (see Questionnaire S2) were designed to elicit from participants how the CCM affected their conceptual understanding of electrostatics. This was given to participants to answer at the end of the 3-week course module.

A five-item Likert scale questionnaire (from strongly agree to strongly disagree) was used to measure participants’ conceptual understanding of electrostatics (see Questionnaire S3). In addition, a three-item questionnaire to measure the effect of the CCM on participants’ conceptual understanding was also given before the post-test. To measure participants’ knowledge and understanding in their own words, five open-ended questions were given pre- and post-lesson (see Questionnaire S4). Quantitative data collection was conducted through pre- and post-tests, Likert scale questionnaires, and pre-and post-questionnaires.

Using a combination of diverse data collection instruments (open-ended, closed-ended questionnaires, and pre- and post-tests) enables the data collection from multiple participants’ perspectives. Furthermore, it eliminates the prospect of mono-method bias, potentially threatening validity, such as in research that employs a single data collection method [38].

2.4. Data Analysis

The pre- and post-test data and the questionnaires were coded in an Excel spreadsheet and imported into the SPSS (Version 28) statistical software [39] for quantitative analysis. The first author graded the pre- and post-tests out of a total score of 10. The test scores were analyzed using a paired-samples t-test statistical model to check if there is a statistically significant difference between the means of the pre- and post-tests. This analysis enabled the researchers to provide strong evidence of the variables’ cause-and-effect relationship [40]. A Shapiro–Wilk test was run to test the normality of the data used for the analysis. The weak normality test results prompted the authors to consider other correlation tests. To satisfactorily answer research question one, the researchers decided to employ parametric and non-parametric tests to test the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

There is no relationship between the conceptual change model (CCM) and the conceptual understanding of electrostatics.

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

There is a relationship between the conceptual change model (CCM) and the conceptual understanding of electrostatics.

The authors used Pearson, Spearman’s rho, and Kendall tau_b correlations to test the hypotheses posed in the research. The Pearson coefficient measured the strength of the linear relationship between the two variables, i.e., conceptual understanding and conceptual change model. Spearman rho establishes whether the two variables are independent [41] and Kendall tau_b, like Pearson, measures the strength of the relationship between two variables [42]. Pearson, Spearman, and Kendall tau_b correlations were used to ascertain the relationship between the summed scores for the variables, conceptual understanding, and conceptual change model. Sullivan et al. make the case that parametric tests can be conducted on the summed scores of Likert scale data if the assumptions are clearly stated, and the data are of the appropriate size and shape [43].

The pre- and post-test data and the questionnaires were coded in an Excel spreadsheet and imported into the SPSS statistical software for quantitative analysis. The method of deductive coding was employed in data analysis because this research aims to look for significant sentences or quotes [34,44] in the data that will help answer the research questions posed. Cohen’s d was calculated for the pre- and post-tests. Cohen’s d is designed to compare two groups by using the difference between two means expressed in standard deviation units. It tells you how many standard deviations lie between the two means [45]. An effect size d of 0.2 or smaller is small; d = 0.5 is medium; and d = 0.8 or large is a large effect size [40]. Effect size (d) was calculated to examine the magnitude of difference between the average score of the pre- and post-tests. In analyzing data from the open-ended pre- and post-questionnaires, pre-service teacher participants’ responses will be categorized under the codes “Misconceptions” and “Scientifically accurate”. Misconceptions are ideas that people have that are inconsistent with scientifically acceptable ideas or with what is known to be scientifically accurate [46,47]. Qualitative analysis is used to augment the quantitative interpretation of research question 1.

As the authors read through the responses provided by participants to the three open-ended questionnaires, it became evident that the respondents could be divided into three groups: those who said that the CCM helped in their understanding, those who said it did not help, and those who were not sure if it helped. In this regard, the authors created three categories: the positive effect of CCM (PE), the negative effect of CCM (NE), and the neutral effect of CCM (NeuE) in promoting conceptual understanding of electrostatics.

In this research, the validation procedures involved pilot testing the data collection instruments described above to assess their accuracy [48]. The feedback from the pilot testing led to improvements in the instruments to promote external validity and make the research results more generalizable; measures were taken to ensure the sample accurately represented the population [40]. The pre- and post-lesson questionnaire is an example of a formative assessment probe used to elicit pre-service teachers’ conceptions of electrostatics. Their pre- and post-responses were categorized under the themes “misconception” and “scientifically accurate”.

3. Results

Correlation analyses were run [45] in SPSS to see if there is a significant correlation between the conceptual change model (CCM) and conceptual understanding of the topic of electrostatics. The Shapiro–Wilk test for normality was W (55) = 0.89, p = 0.053 for the conceptual change model, and W (55) = 0.78, p = 0.049 for conceptual understanding. The significant values of 0.89 and 0.78 from the Shapiro–Wilk Test for the conceptual change model and conceptual understanding, respectively, mean that the data for both variables are normally distributed. Therefore, the two variables meet the normality assumption requirement needed to carry out a Pearson correlation test.

In testing the scales’ reliability, the Cronbach’s alpha for the conceptual change model (three items) was α = 0.741, and for conceptual understanding (four items), it was α =0.716. The computed alphas indicated that the items used for the two variable scales had reasonable internal consistency and reliability. Cronbach’s alpha tests were used to see if the multiple-question Likert scale surveys are reliable. Cronbach’s alphas of 0.741 for the three conceptual change items and 0.716 for the four conceptual understanding items showed that the items for both scales have acceptable reliability or internal consistency. This means that the questionnaire used for the two variables reliably measures to an acceptable degree the variables of interest, which are conceptual understanding and the conceptual change model.

The results indicated that the significant value (p-value), p < 0.001 is below the standard criterion of 0.05, indicating that there is a statistically significant positive linear relationship between CCM and conceptual understanding for all the parametric and non-parametric tests.

Table 1. Correlations between the conceptual change model and conceptual understanding.

Variables		Conceptual Change Model	Conceptual Understanding
Conceptual Change Model	Pearson’s r p-value N	1 - 55	0.568 * <0.001 55
Conceptual Understanding	Pearson’s r p-value N	0.568 * <0.001 55	1 - 55
Conceptual Change Model	Kendall tau_b	1	0.372 *
	p-value	-	<0.001
	N	55	55
Conceptual Understanding	Kendall tau_b	0.372 *	1
	p-value	<0.001	-
	N	55	55
Conceptual Change Model	Spearman’s rho	1	0.459 *
	p-value	-	<0.001
	N	55	55
Conceptual Understanding	Spearman’s rho	0.459 *	1
	p-value	-	<0.001
	N	55	55

* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

summarizes the correlations between the two variables. When the three correlation tests were run, they showed a positive correlation between the conceptual change model and conceptual understanding. This relationship ranged from moderate to weak depending on the test. The CCM moderately correlated with building conceptual understanding: Pearson’s r = 0.568, Spearman’s rho = 0.459 and Kendall tau_b = 0.372, and these correlations were all significant at the 0.01 level. The small correlation coefficients for Spearman’s rho and Kendall tau_b, though positive, showed that the Likert items under the conceptual change model weakly predicted their relationship with the Likert items under conceptual understanding. This means that though a positive relationship existed between teaching with the conceptual change model and participants’ conceptual understanding of electrostatics, it is a very weak relationship. However, Pearson’s correlation coefficient showed a positive but moderate relationship between the conceptual change model and pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding of electrostatics. The results from both the parametric and non-parametric tests showed that changes in the conceptual change model are associated with changes in the participants’ conceptual understanding of electrostatics.

A paired-sample [45] was conducted to compare pre-test and post-test misconception scores (n = 55).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of electrostatics knowledge from pre-test and post-test scores.

Variable	N	$\overline{\mathit{x}}$	SD
Pre-test electrostatics knowledge	55	5.47	1.23
Post-test electrostatics knowledge	55	8.93	1.09

provides the means and standard deviations. Table 2 shows growth in electrostatics knowledge from the pre-test to the post-test. Results indicated a statistically significant difference between pretest scores (M = 5.47, SD = 1.23) and posttest scores (M = 8.93, SD = 1.09); t (54) = −15.29, p < 0.001. Cohen’s d effect size was 1.68, this large effect size between the pre- and post-test scores is indicative of how substantially different the results are for the pre- and post-tests. We can infer that the CCM instructional approach did have an effect on the participants’ understanding of the electrostatics concepts.

Participants’ responses to the three questions showed that the CCM positively affected their conceptual understanding of electrostatics. An analysis of the data on participants’ open-ended responses revealed that 37 pre-service teacher participants (86.05%) provided responses that indicated that writing predictions and explanations before the investigative activity positively affected their conceptual understanding. Two participants (4.65%) said writing predictions and explanations had a negative effect on their conceptual understanding. Figure 2 below is a graphical representation of pre-service teacher participants’ responses to question one.

Participant (PST 09) provided the following response to question one:

It helps a lot. …. observing examples and making predictions on them really helped my understanding.

Another participant (PST 16) wrote the following in response to question one.

Writing down my predictions helped me to keep track of my thoughts and confront any misconceptions I had.

The CCM phases also included a collaborative learning experience; when participants were asked about their collaborative learning experience, 33 out of the 43 participants (76.74%) responded that CCM had a positive effect in helping them confront their beliefs about electrostatics. Figure 3 provides a graphical summary of participants’ responses to question three. Participant (PST 11) wrote:

It helped me see others [sic] opinions and see if they were different from my own.

Another participant (PST 23) wrote, “We addressed beliefs we all had and were able to discuss how and why we thought different things and so were able to confront by comparison.”

The fourth phase of CCM is “Accommodate the Concept”, an instructor-facilitated phase of sharing and discussing student learning and real-life connections to the topic. Thirty-seven participants (86.05%) said this phase of the CCM process positively affected their understanding of the topic of electrostatics. Four of the participants (9.30%) wrote that it had a negative effect on them. One participant’s response indicates that the CCM did not affect their conceptual understanding. Figure 4 shows how participants responded to question three.

Participant PST 02 wrote, “Yes, I was able to compare the topic with experiences I’ve had in my own life. Example, static electricity in my home.”

In contrast, another participant PST 15, provided the following response:

It did not help me in any major way because I have experienced static electricity many times in real life, so I already know what to expect.

Participants’ responses to the four statements to ascertain their level of conception regarding electrostatic concepts were analyzed.

Figure 5 and Figure 6 below present a graphical interpretation of the analyzed data. As can be seen from the results, participants provided more scientifically accurate responses in their post-lesson questionnaire compared to the pre-lesson questionnaire. Participant (PST09) wrote in the pre-lesson response to statement one:

I think that static charges can only be transferred when the two objects are rubbing on each other just like how a plastic comb becomes charged when you comb your hair and can pick pieces of paper.

The above response is a misconception. However, in the post-lesson response after going through the electrostatics activities, the same participant (PST09) wrote the following:

I now know that materials can also be charged by induction and not just by touching or friction. The balloon stuck to the wall without any rubbing.

In responding to the statement, the participant’s (PST14) initial response was as follows:

When an object is neutral it does not have positive charges or negative charges it only has neutral charges, so it is neutral.

After learning the electrostatics topic using the CCM, the post-lesson responses changed from obvious misconceptions to more scientifically accurate responses, as shown below. This scenario runs throughout the majority of the respondents’ answers, as shown in the bar charts of Figure 5 and Figure 6.

When an object is neutral it has both electrons and protons, so it is made up of electric charges.

4. Discussion

The paired sample t-test results showed that the participants’ knowledge of electrostatics increased from pre-test scores to post-test scores. An increase in electrostatics knowledge surmises a decrease in misconceptions about electrostatics. Consistent with results in the literature [28,30], the results showed that the CCM aided the conceptual understanding and minimized the pre-service teachers’ misconceptions about electrostatics. This research contributes to the limited literature on the effect of the CCM on pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding of electrostatics. It can also be seen from the results that the CCM correlated positively with building conceptual understanding for both the parametric and non-parametric tests; this indicates that the CCM positively affected the participating pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding of electrostatics. The Cohen’s d effect size showed a high-level practical significance. Correlation is not causality [44]; hence, the authors resist the temptation to infer that the CCM caused an increase in conceptual understanding. However, they believe that similar research must be carried out to provide more information on the CCM and how it influences the conceptual understanding of the pre-service teachers in the learning of science concepts.

The results in Table 1 showed that for the three analyses, Pearson, Spearman’s rho, and Kendal tau_b, the conceptual change model was positively correlated to the conceptual understanding at the p < 0.01 level. The researchers conclude that since one of the objectives of this research was to investigate whether a relationship existed between the pair of variables, a positively significant relationship exists between the permuted pair of variables. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected because of a relationship between the conceptual change model and conceptual understanding. The coefficients for Kendall tau_b = 0.372 and Spearman’s rho = 0.459 are less than 0.50, which showed a weak relationship between the conceptual change model and conceptual understanding as far as the non-parametric tests are concerned. However, with a coefficient of 0.568, Pearson’s parametric test showed a moderate correlation.

In answering the first research question, all three correlation analyses indicated a positive correlational relationship between pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding of electrostatics and the conceptual change model of instruction. This is consistent with the literature on the effectiveness of the conceptual change model in improving conceptual understanding [21,28,49,50].

The pre- and post-test scores helped further in answering research question one; the differences in mean test scores can be attributed to a few reasons. One explanation is that the instructional technique may have positively affected participants’ understanding of electrostatics. The approaches of the CCM placed the pre-service teacher participants in an environment of cognitive conflict between their predictions and the evidence of the investigative results, thereby igniting a process of conceptual change, just as Koponen [18] had pointed out in their paper. However, further research that investigates the CCM’s effect on the control and experimental group will be needed before a claim of causality can be made.

When information from analyzing the three open-ended questions was acquired, the data showed that a more significant percentage of participants believed that learning with the CCM had a positive effect (86.05%, 76.74%, and 86.05%, respectively) on their conceptual understanding of electrostatics. The responses from the pre-service teacher participants showed that the phases of the CCM, which required that they write down their predictions and explanations and engage their colleagues in the learning and sense-making process, play a positive role in their conceptual understanding. The analysis of the pre- and post-responses to the five statements showed that participants provided more scientifically accurate answers in their post-lesson questionnaire than in the pre-lesson questionnaire. In their response to statement four: Neutral objects have no charge. A conceptually difficult statement to understand, the change in participants’ conception was significant, with a greater percentage of participants changing their misconception answers to scientifically accurate answers on the post-questionnaire.

This research provides empirical evidence supporting the knowledge assimilation and misconceptions minimization attributes of the conceptual change model by showing that students understand concepts more when their preconceptions are engaged during instruction. This research also assesses the effect a misconceptions-based instructional approach has on students’ conceptual change to help inform practitioners in the field of science education to make informed decisions about using the CCM for future instruction and research.

Additionally, in the pre- and post-questionnaire responses on participants’ conceptions of the concept of electrostatics, there was a statistically significant difference between pre- and post-responses on all items. All the items on the questionnaire were designed to test pre-service teachers’ misconceptions about electrostatics. The results in Figure 5 and Figure 6 showed that the CCM instructional model positively addressed participants’ misconceptions about electrostatics. There has been a lot of research on how the conceptual change model helps students to overcome misconceptions. This was in line with the study of Akbas and Gencturk and Mansor et al. when they explored the effect of the conceptual change approach in addressing ninth-grade students’ misconceptions about air pressure [51,52].

These results agree with advocates of employing multi-phase instructional approaches to bolster students’ conceptual understanding in the teaching and learning of science [15,53]. In agreement with other research results [15,26], this research also showed that using the conceptual change model, CCM, in teaching science concepts promotes conceptual understanding and minimizes faulty prior conceptions [37,54].

An implication of this research is that it advocates for a more extensive adoption and implementation of the CCM technique in science classrooms across all educational levels to improve its prominence in science education. The other implication is the case made for peer–peer classroom discussions during the teaching and learning of science. The results from this research thus point to a positive relationship between conceptual change and conceptual understanding of science concepts. It also showed that student-centered collaborative learning environments do have a positive effect on conceptual understanding. The existing practice of top-down, teacher-centered, and question-answer approaches to science learning should be discouraged. In its place, science teachers and educators should take advantage of the merits of group discussions and peer–peer collaborations [33]. It must be pointed out that students are not content knowledge experts as far as most science topics are concerned, so during the implementation of the CCM, teachers and educators should not allow individual students with strong opinions to dominate the discussion. The research by Ergin, found that students can use strong and persuasive arguments to impose their misconceptions on colleagues; hence, they advocate for hands-on investigative activities during the implementation of the CCM [55].

One limitation of this research is the small sample size, which prevents the generalization of the findings to the larger population. The small sample size means that this research has less statistical power, and future research by the authors will involve larger sample sizes that will serve as confirmatory research. Additionally, the lack of a validated survey instrument and the approach to scoring the test, which was decided solely by the first author, may raise issues of reliability and internal validity as far as the results are concerned. Lastly, the participants were all from the same university, enrolled in the same course, and tutored by one of the authors.

Future research should conduct in-depth interviews and employ a rigorous qualitative methodology to explore participants’ ideas about the conceptual change model and its effect on conceptual change. Research that is qualitatively designed or includes qualitative components would provide more information about the roles the various phases of the CCM play in participants’ conceptual change process during classroom instruction. These activities would benefit teachers, educators, and curriculum designers regarding how CCM instruction can be developed in science classrooms. In addition, the merit of the conceptual change model for conceptual change and understanding should be investigated and researched across multiple science topics and concepts with the wide-ranging perspective of promoting lifelong science learning and literacy.

5. Conclusions

This research study investigated the effectiveness of the conceptual change model (CCM) in addressing pre-service teachers’ misconceptions and promoting conceptual understanding of electrostatics. The researchers sought to find the connection between the CCM and the conceptual understanding of electrostatics. Open-ended questionnaires were created to qualitatively elicit participating pre-service teachers’ views on the effect of the CCM on their conceptual understanding of electrostatics. A one-group pre-test and post-test design were used to measure the effectiveness of the CCM in addressing misconceptions about electrostatics. In addition, a questionnaire using the five-point Likert scale was used to gather students’ responses regarding the impact of CCM on their conceptual understanding of electrostatics.

The results showed a statistically significant, positive linear correlation between CCM and building conceptual understanding. The paired-sample t-test showed growth in electrostatics knowledge from the pre-test to the post-test. Participants’ responses to the three questions related to phases of the conceptual change model on their understanding showed that the CCM positively affected their conceptual understanding of electrostatics. The data revealed that many pre-service teacher participants provided responses indicating that writing predictions and explanations before the investigative activity had a positive effect on their conceptual understanding. These results support prior research on conceptual change [30,31,51]. The authors were surprised to discover that the writing of predictions and explanations prior to the lesson positively affected participants’ conceptual understanding. This research study moves the field forward by understanding how to implement the conceptual change model as an instructional practice effectively.

Future research should consider using in-depth interviews and a rigorous qualitative methodology to explore participants’ ideas about the conceptual change model and its effect on conceptual change. The data from the participants’ perspective would benefit teachers, educators, and curriculum designers regarding how CCM instruction can be developed for use in science classrooms. Additionally, the CCM’s effectiveness in bringing about conceptual change and understanding should be researched across multiple science topics and concepts to bolster the promotion of enduring science learning and literacy. The takeaway here is that by leveraging CCM, educators in multiple spaces can increase pre-service teacher understanding of content, but not necessarily the transmission of using CCM with others that they teach.