You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Knowledge
  • Article
  • Open Access

25 February 2022

How Elementary Pre-Service Teachers Use Scientific Knowledge to Justify Their Reasoning about the Electrification Phenomena by Friction

Département de Didactique, Université du Québec à Montreal, Montréal, QC H3C 3P8, Canada

Abstract

This article uses a qualitative research method to identify eighty elementary pre-service teachers’ conceptual representations concerning static electricity. We carry out this analysis using a paper and pencil questionnaire. This study shows that pre-service teachers have an erroneous understanding compared to those commonly accepted by the scientific community. The inaccurate representations identified are relevant for developing teaching strategies focused on conceptual conflict.

1. Introduction

Worldwide elementary and secondary schools’ curricula prescribed the study of electrical circuits and static electricity. A review of research on students’ alternative conceptions and their teachers revealed less research about electrostatic phenomena [1,2,3,4,5,6] than those related to the electric circuit [7,8,9,10,11,12,13], despite the critical transition between these two areas of knowledge. On this subject, Bensghir and Closset [14], Métioui et al. [15], and Eylon and Ganiel [16] showed several conceptual difficulties in the study of electrical circuits result from misunderstanding electrostatic concept as electric charge. In this regard, Eylon and Ganiel [16] (p. 76) point out the following about the conceptual difficulties encountered by students about the electrical circuit.
We find that even in very simple situations, most students do not tie concepts from electrostatics into their description of the phenomena. This leads to severe inconsistencies in student answers to questions about currents, charges, and their sources in an electric circuit. Formal definitions (even when quoted correctly) are not utilized operationally. Consequently, a consistent picture of the mechanisms is usually lacking. This may explain why students cannot conceptualize the electric circuit as a system and appreciate the functional relationships between its parts (p. 76).
Furthermore, students have difficulty interpreting the sign terminals of a battery + and − and the electric current flow in a simple electrical circuit [11]. Likewise, for many students, if we touch one end of the battery terminals with the finger, we receive an electric shock [11]. In addition, many students think that a battery contains electrical charges as a water reservoir [17].
The following misconceptions are the consequence of the imprecise transition between dynamic electricity and static electricity as highlighted by many researchers [14,15,16,17]: the voltage is related to the amount of current, the current creates the voltage rather than the voltage being needed for the current to flow, the voltage could not exist if no current is flowing, batteries become flat when all of the electricity stored in the battery is used up, the “negative current” goes back to the battery and the “positive current” comes from the battery.
Interestingly, these misconceptions are also the consequence of the imprecise use of everyday language (e.g., the terms current, voltage, and electrical power are used interchangeably, voltage is the force of the electric current) [18].
This qualitative research falls within this perspective and aims to identify the scientific knowledge used by eighty elementary pre-service teachers to justify their reasoning about the electrification phenomena by rubbing, contact, and induction (polarization) as well as the formation of lightning.

2. Methodology

We gave them a paper–and–pencil questionnaire lasting sixty minutes to highlight their conceptual representations. The (open) questions were related to situations with which they interact in their daily environment, and the questions’ answers require an understanding of the production phenomenon of electric charges and their displacement and the law of charges between contrary charges’ objects. We have also considered the concepts prescribed in the Québec Education Program [19], where teachers are required to teach activities describing: the effect of electrostatic attraction (e.g., describes the effect of electrostatic attraction (paper attracted by a charged object), electrical conductors, and insulators, and the insulating properties of various substances).

3. Population

Within the framework of a university course on science didactics offered to students in primary school teacher training, we administered the questionnaire to eighty (80) students at the start of the course, including the average age of 23 years old. After six years of elementary school, they completed their high school diploma (five years) and their college diploma (two years) in the humanities. In high school, they took two science courses related to physics, chemistry, and the environment, and we asked them if they had ever taken a course in electrostatics. Thus, only 25% indicated studying it and vaguely remembered the concepts studied. Before they filled in the questionnaire, it was explained to them that the questions aimed to know their previous knowledge on phenomena related to static electricity that they will have to teach their future students under the training program of the Ministry of Education. We explained to them that they had to answer without worrying about the scientific veracity of their explanations and that they would have the opportunity to compare them to those that will be studying during the course on this topic.

4. Construction of the Questionnaire

We constructed six questions and the students had to rely on their scientific knowledge (i.e., their explanatory model) to answer them. The questionnaire could not be answered adequately by referring to the notion learned “mechanically” by rote. Table 1 presents the formulated questions and their answer scientifically accepted. To ensure the scientific validity of our answers, we consulted scientific literature [20,21,22]. Note that the responses conform to the electrification by friction and the polarization phenomenon as developed in the context of static electricity associated with the study of electrical charges at rest.
Table 1. Paper and pencil questionnaire and answers.
Furthermore, we validated the questionnaire with three university professors in science education who noted that the wording of the questions was understandable for elementary pre-service teachers who are not scientists and that the answers to the questions do not require any quantitative reasoning. Therefore, answers were clearly formulated, even if the concepts raised, such as the electric field, were not explored in depth. Note that the questions selected are related to the students’ environment. They also cover the phenomenon of electrification by friction, the law of charges between rubbed objects, and matter polarization.

5. Data Analyses

We present below the representations identified in each question following the analysis of the answers, followed by the students’ comments through illustration. The scientific knowledge synthesized in Table 1 is essential because it constitutes our analyses grid. Thereby, we construct a conceptual representation of responses having similar intended meanings. Note that the representations’ numbers depend on the question and the student’s answers.

5.1. Data Analysis: Question 1

Analysis of the responses allowed us to identify four conceptual representations to explain this phenomenon: 1. As a result of friction, the comb gives up electrons (negative charges) to the hair. These have the same charge (negative), repel each other, 2. Friction between the comb and the hair creates a transfer of static electricity (or electric charges) to the hair, hence their repulsion, 3. The hair stands on end due to the static electricity created by rubbing against the comb, and 4. Hair stands on end due to the electrical charges in the surrounding air.
Students’ numbers identified for each representation, and some of their responses are presented in Table 2, followed by our analyses.
Table 2. Student scientific knowledge about hair repellency and their analyses.
Other students’ (14/80–17%) answers are indecipherable to regroup them in given representations. By way of illustration, here are some advanced answers:
“Because hair contains electrical charges too. Our brush or comb also contains electrical charges opposite to those of our hair. So it is like a magnet, opposing forces attract, and equal forces repel each other. It is electrostatics.” (E18)
“There is an activation of neutrons and electrons that causes a magnetic charge, like a little with magnets, except that there is not necessarily the presence of ferromagnetic metals.” (E23)
“When combing the hair, I create heat which agitates the atoms that compose it and creates electrostatic energy, which acts like a magnet.” (E30)

5.2. Data Analysis: Question 2

This question aimed to find out how the students explain the effect of “anti–static” paper in a dryer to reduce the formation of “static” in clothes. As highlighted in Table 1, the focus of this question concerns the property of dryer sheets to reduce static formed during drying, and this phenomenon is familiar to them.
Two representations emerge from the analysis of the advanced responses:
  • The fabric softener paper prevents static formation due to its chemical composition.
  • The fabric softener prevents static formation because the paper components have the property of absorbing the static.
Students’ numbers identified for each representation, and some of their responses are presented in Table 3, followed by our analyses.
Table 3. Student scientific knowledge relative to “anti–static” paper and their analyses.
Other students’ (10/80–13%) answers are indecipherable to regroup them in given representations:
“It is that statics is a form of energy that we can remove. Indeed, it is like an electric current, if you remove the battery, there is no more current.” (E7)
“I think this is to prevent an explosion or ignition in the dryer due to the high amount of friction? Perhaps this paper absorbs the electricity produced like a battery?” (E17)
“I think the Bounty gives off a scent, which negates the static potency. Adding another derivative through the heat or introducing another material into that heat changes the current. A bit like when we wet a garment: the change in temperature moves away from the static. “(E27)
Eight (10%) students have also admitted having no idea why this is so:
“As the name suggests, the paper will prevent the build–up of static electricity; however, I do not see how that works.” (E1)
“I do not have the faintest idea.” (E34)

5.3. Data Analysis: Question 3

Students asked how they explained that a balloon that had previously rubbed on hair could stick to a wall regarding the second question. The goal is to see if they refer to the polarization phenomenon (see Table 1). Five conceptual representations emerged from the data analysis: 1. The balloon sticks to the wall because statics (or static electricity) created by rubbing makes it stick to the wall; 2. Hair’s charges were transferred to the balloon because of friction is why it sticks at the wall; 3. The balloon sticks to the wall because the balloon charges negatively due to friction against the hair, and it sticks to the wall positively charged; 4. Static energy is produced by rubbing the balloon against the hair and transferring it to the wall; it is why the balloon sticks to the wall, and 5. The balloon is charged (positive or negative) because of friction against the wool. The opposite charge in the wall interacts with the balloon charges; explains how it becomes stuck on the wall.
Students’ numbers identified for each representation, and some of their responses are presented in Table 4, followed by our analyses.
Table 4. Student scientific knowledge about the balloon sticking to the wall and their analyses.

5.4. Data Analysis: Question 4

Students were asked how they explained that a plastic ruler that had previously been rubbed on a piece of woolen cloth attracts small pieces of paper at a distance regarding the third question. The goal is to see if they refer to the polarization phenomenon illustrated above (Table 1). Note that this question is related to the same phenomenon studied in the preceding question. Four conceptual representations emerged from the data analysis: 1. When approaching the charged ruler (e.g., negatively charged) of the pieces of paper (electrically neutral), the positive charges of the pieces of paper are closest to the ruler, which explains the observed attraction; 2. The friction of the ruler creates an electric field that attracts the pieces of paper from a distance; 3. The static energy in the ruler acquired due to its friction is transmitted to small pieces of paper and attracts them; and 4. The friction of the ruler creates a magnetic field that attracts the pieces of paper from a distance. Students’ numbers identified for each representation, and some of their responses are presented in Table 5, followed by our analyses.
Table 5. Student scientific knowledge about the piece of paper attraction and their analyses.
Other students’ (17/80–21%) answers are indecipherable to regroup them in given representations. By way of illustration, here are some advanced answers:
“I think the plastic and the piece of cloth together contain electrical charges which when rubbed together attract electrons from the pieces of paper.” (E11)
“I think it is the static between the plastic of the ruler and the piece of cloth. This causes charges.” (E29)
“This is because the ruler is in an environment where there is much electricity in the air. Also, the temperature of the environment is conducive to activate the latent electricity on the ruler.” (E80)

5.5. Data Analysis: Question 5

The students’ explanations on the formation of lightning during a thunderstorm allowed us to identify four conceptual representations presented in Table 6, as well as the students’ numbers identified for each one and some of their responses.
Table 6. Student scientific knowledge about the lightning and their analyses.
For 20% of students, lightning formed due to charge transfer between a cloud and the ground. This representation is fair. However, there is a lack of explanations for this phenomenon, and it is the same for the other representations.
Twenty student answers (20/80–25%) were indecipherable to regroup in given representations. By way of illustration, here are some mistaken and confused reasoning answers.
“It is electricity that begins with atoms which are electrons that move in a given space like lightning. It is then an electric current between the cloud and the ground that produces light.” (E38)
“Lightning is formed in clouds where hot particles contact cold ones. This collision causes positive and negative charges. These are then attracted to the Earth’s charge. The lightning thus formed then touches the ground directly or with the aid of an electrically conductive object.” (E64)
“The creation of electricity comes from the friction between various substances. In the sky, during a thunderstorm, the clouds, therefore the fine water droplets in suspension, are very agitated by the high temperature causing the thunderstorm. This increase in temperature creates friction between the droplets, and at a certain point, this stored energy is released, which forms lightning.” (E70)
“Ions come together from the clouds to the earth, the heat and light of their movement towards the ground as well as their large number makes them visible.” (E77)

5.6. Data Analysis: Question 6

The students’ explanations concerning the shock that one can receive by touching a metal handle after having rubbed our feet on a carpet in dry weather allowed us to identify three conceptual representations presented in Table 7.
Table 7. Student scientific knowledge about electrical shock.
Twenty–five student answers (26/80–33%) were indecipherable to regroup in given representations. By way of illustration, here are some mistaken and confused reasoning answers:
“I believe this is due to our body temperature. The contact of the handle with the difference in temperature of our body creates a shock. Maybe we have too much static in us.” (E27)
“Metal is a conductor of electricity, so when we are in motion, the static in the air comes into contact with our body, and when we touch the metal handle, we feel the shock.” (E29)

6. Discussion

The data analyses showed that students’ knowledge about electrostatic phenomena appears in epistemological rupture with modern scientific knowledge. The representations of the student appear to be irreconcilable with those generally accepted in the scientific community. Table 8 lists the essential student knowledge encountered in the present study.
Table 8. Summary of students’ scientific knowledge and of their corresponding scientific knowledge.
So, students’ scientific knowledge used to explain the electrification phenomena produced by friction is inadequate compared to the modern scientific knowledge related to these phenomena. Students used scientific terms, such as electric field, magnetic field, static energy, static electricity, static charge, positive charge, negative charge, and charged object leaning their logical thinking and everyday interaction with electrostatic phenomena. It is important to continue research to have more details on some of their answers.
Interestingly, these findings are consistent with many studies, including Suma et al. [6], which showed that high school students’ scientific knowledge about static electricity concepts is wrong compared to scientific knowledge despite teaching. According to him, for many students, “a balloon rubbed by silk will have the static electric charge that it can attract paper torn pieces. The term static electricity is identical to a static charge.” Furthermore, “plastic rubbed by cloth will get additional electrons from the cloth, that the plastic charge becomes positive; the cloth will have the negative charge so that the cloth and the plastic will attract each other.”
The identified student knowledge is highly relevant and appropriate to develop a two–tier test to rapidly diagnose the pre-service elementary teachers during their education at the university. Furthermore, one can build experiments confronting student knowledge.

7. Conclusions and Didactical Impact

While being clear about the limits inherent in qualitative research, the results have concluded that teachers in training construct misconceptions about static electricity. The data analyses indicate that they interpret the various phenomena related to static electricity by referring mainly to three representations. The first involves opposing charges whose interaction seems to justify the observed phenomenon. The second refers to an equilibrium mechanism that redistributes charges between objects. The third relies on an accumulation of charges and possible flow in certain conditions. Other researchers have also identified these representations, as presented in the international literature review. So that these future teachers do not transmit their erroneous conceptions to their students, they should first discover the law of attraction and repulsion between rubbed bodies and between rubbed and non–rubbed bodies by carrying out different experiments. Unlike traditional teaching, they will analyze these experiments on a macroscopic scale, such as those performed at the beginning of the development of static electricity before understanding matter at the atomic scale. Then, they will study some historical considerations on the development of the particulate aspect of the matter. Pre-service teachers will have to confront their conceptual representations with scientific conceptions constructed throughout history to acquire scientific knowledge. In this regard, we must favor conceptual change strategies [23,24], which consist of comparing their misconceptions with those commonly accepted by scientists, as presented in the analysis of the responses put forward by the students concerning each of the six situations retained.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable for this search.

Data Availability Statement

The data is confidential in accordance with human research ethics.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Guruswamy, C.; Somars, M.D.; Hussey, R.G. Students’ understanding of the transfer of charge between conductors. Phys. Educ. 1997, 32, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. McMillan, C.; Swadner, M. Novice use of qualitative versus quantitative problem solving in electrostatics. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1991, 28, 661–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Métioui, A.; Trudel, L. Primary Student Teachers’ Misconceptions about Electrostatic. In Teaching Learning Science at All Levels; Cieśla, P., Michniewska, A., Eds.; Pedagogical University of Kraków: Kraków, Poland, 2014; pp. 124–127. ISBN 978-83-7271-880-8. [Google Scholar]
  4. Criado, A.M.; Garcia-Carmona, A. Prospective Teachers’ Difficulties in Interpreting Elementary Phenomena of Electrostatic Interaction: Indicators of the status of their intuitive ideas. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2010, 32, 769–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Önder, F.; Şenyiğit, C.; Sılay, I. The Effects of Misconceptions on Pre-service Teachers’ Ability to Constructing Simple Electric Circuits. Eur. J. Phys. Educ. 2017, 8, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  6. Suma, K.; Sadia, I.W.; Pujani, N.M. Investigating 12th-Grade Students’ Prior Knowledge of Static Electricity Concepts. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2018, 13, 163–172. [Google Scholar]
  7. Webb, P. Primary science teachers’ understandings of electric current. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1992, 14, 423–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Küçüközer, H.; Kocakülah, S. Secondary school students’ misconceptions about simple electric circuits. J. Turk. Sci. Educ. 2007, 4, 101–115. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bilal, E.; Erol, M. Investigating students’ conceptions of some electricity concepts. Lat. Am. J. Phys. Educ 2009, 3, 193–201. [Google Scholar]
  10. Turgut, U.; Gürbüz, F.; Turgut, G. An investigation 10th-grade students’ misconceptions about electric. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 15, 1965–1971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Métioui, A.; Trudel, L. Conceptions About Electrical Circuits of English and French Pupils from Nova Scotia in Canada: English and French Conceptions on Electric Circuits. EDU Rev. 2020, 8, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Engelhardt, P.V.; Beichner, R.J. Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. Am. J. Phys. 2004, 72, 98–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Koudelkova, V.; Dvorak, L. High school students’ misconceptions in electricity and magnetism and some experiments that can help students to reduce them. Il Nuovo Cim. C 2015, 38, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bensghir, A.; Closset, J. The electrostatics-electrokinetics transition: Historical and educational difficulties. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1996, 18, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Métioui, A.; Brassard, C.; Levasseur, J.; Lavoie, M. The persistence of students’ unfounded beliefs about electrical circuits: The case of Ohm’s law. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1996, 18, 193–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Eylon, B.S.; Ganiel, U. 1990 Macro-micro relationships: The missing link between electrostatics and electrodynamics in students’ reasoning. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1990, 12, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Azaiza, I.; Bar, V.; Awad, Y.; Khalil, M. Pupils’ Explanations of Natural Phenomena and Their Relationship to Electricity. Sci. Res. 2012, 3, 1354–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Métioui, A.; Trudel, L. Life-world Knowledge and Scientific Knowledge: An Epistemological Rupture. Adv. Soc. Sci. Res. J. 2018, 5, 398–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Québec Education Program. Progression of Learning in Elementary School. Available online: http://www.education.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/site_web/documents/education/jeunes/pfeq/PDA_PFEQ_science-technologie-primaire_2009_EN.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2022).
  20. Griffiths, D.J. Introduction to Electrodynamics, 4th ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  21. Jackson, J.D. Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  22. Purcell, E.M.; Morin, D.J. Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  23. Posner, G.; Strike, K.; Hewson, P.; Gertzog, W. Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Sci. Educ. 1983, 66, 211–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Başer, M.; Geban, Ö. Effect of instruction based on conceptual change activities on students’ understanding of static electricity concepts. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2007, 25, 243–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.