A Technology‐Enhanced Unit of Modeling Static Electricity: Integrating scientific explanations and everyday observations

Abstract

What trajectories do students follow as they connect their observations of electrostatic phenomena to atomic‐level visualizations? We designed an electrostatics unit, using the knowledge integration framework to help students link observations and scientific ideas. We analyze how learners integrate ideas about charges, charged particles, energy, and observable events. We compare learning enactments in a typical school and a magnet school in the USA. We use pre‐tests, post‐tests, embedded notes, and delayed post‐tests to capture the trajectories of students’ knowledge integration. We analyze how visualizations help students grapple with abstract electrostatics concepts such as induction. We find that overall students gain more sophisticated ideas. They can interpret dynamic, interactive visualizations, and connect charge‐ and particle‐based explanations to interpret observable events. Students continue to have difficulty in applying the energy‐based explanation.

Keywords:

• Modeling‐based instruction
• Formative assessment
• Preservice science teacher education

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant REC‐0334199, Center for Learning and Teaching on Technology Enhanced Learning in Science (TELS). Any opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. The authors appreciate the helpful comments and edits from Suparna Kudesia and other TELS research group members and the feedback provided by the anonymous reviewers of the journal.

Notes

1. Comparing to the previous version (Casperson & Linn, 2006), one major change in terms of topic coverage is that the new unit focuses on static electricity and only briefly mentions electric circuit. A unified treatment of electrostatics and electric circuits needs additional instructional time (Sherwood & Chabay, 1999). Another major difference is that the previous unit emphasizes literacy and historical development of the knowledge on electricity whereas the current unit incorporates hands‐on experience and the connections between scientific views and students’ everyday life.

2. The video can be accessed from the website of the Petroleum Equipment Institute (http://www.pei.org/). The chemical aspect of refueling fires (e.g., combustion) is not addressed in this unit. It is addressed in the WISE unit—Will Gasoline Powered Vehicles Become a Thing of the Past?

3. The Wright map (Wilson, 2005) of the results shows that the electrostatics item difficulties are well spread out along the logit units. Fit statistics are within the range of 0.75–1.33, indicating that the Rasch partial credit model fits the data well. The EAP/PV reliability coefficient is 0.77.

4. When computing F, we used the average of item Balloon and item Silk to represent the knowledge integration scores in pre‐, post‐, and delayed tests, since only these two items are measured in the delayed post‐test. We used results from students (N = 23) who took all the three tests.

5. When we categorized student explanations based on Table 5, each student response was treated as one unit. For example, if a student presented two explanations (e.g., movement‐of‐electrons [ME] and interaction‐between‐charges/charged‐objects [IC]), we counted each as half. The reader should not equate the mixture of explanations with knowledge integration connections of ideas. Even within one type of explanation (say, ME), students may present several ideas and make connections among them, hence receiving high knowledge integration scores.

6. The distance effect refers to the mechanism that the attraction between the excessive charges on the balloon and the opposite charges in the wall is greater than the repulsion between the excessive charges on the balloon and the like charges in the wall since the distance between the excessive charges on the balloon and the opposite charges in the wall is smaller than that between the excessive charges on the balloon and the like charges in the wall.