ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS CONSTRUCTED BY FIRST-YEAR ENGINEERING STUDENTS ADDRESSING ELECTROMAGNETIC...

JOSE MANUEL ALMUDI and MIKEL CEBERIO

ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS CONSTRUCTED BY FIRST-YEARENGINEERING STUDENTS ADDRESSING ELECTROMAGNETIC

INDUCTION PROBLEMS

Received: 4 October 2013; Accepted: 29 January 2014

ABSTRACT. This study explored the quality of arguments used by first-year engineeringuniversity students enrolled in a traditional physics course dealing with electromagneticinduction and related problem solving where they had to assess whether theelectromagnetic induction phenomenon would occur. Their conclusions were analyzedfor the relevance of the laws and principles they had considered when coming to aconclusion (conceptual relevance) and the quality of the evidence and whether theirconclusions were validated by the consistency of their reasoning (sufficiency of thereasoning). The most remarkable findings revealed emerging deficiencies linked to thefact that, when considering the evidence, in most cases, students do not reason therelationship between the evidence and the conclusion properly and they used only theFaraday Law. Implications for teaching, based on the results of this study, suggest thatinstruction should consider both the Faraday’s and Lorentz Force Laws when trying tocalculate the magnetic flow variation through the area swept by the conductor.Furthermore, considerations should explore both laws as equivalent and the need todevelop a reasoned justification for their conclusions using the appropriate foundation.

KEY WORDS: argumentation, electromagnetic induction, university physics teaching

INTRODUCTION

There is wide consensus among epistemologists and researchers thatscientific research can be understood as a construction process producingtheories to explain observations and data that must be revised, debated,and criticized by the scientific community (Chalmers, 2000; Driver,Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Sandoval & Reiser, 2004). The framework forscience education in the USA stressed the centrality of argument, critique,and analysis to science inquiry and engineering design (National ResearchCouncil, 2012). The capacity to construct a clear and convincingargument that coordinates the data or evidence and the theory to defendor reject an approach constitutes a fundamental aspect of science andengineering (Driver et al., 2000; Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Jiménez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez, & Duschl, 2000). Kuhn & Reiser (2005)suggested developing ways of thinking as an objective for science

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 2014# National Science Council, Taiwan 2014

education where research and argumentation were central aspects.Therefore, argumentation in a university engineering context is aworthwhile and important context for additional research. This studyexplored how first-year engineering students solved problems aboutelectromagnetic induction (EMI) and analyzed their associated argumentsusing a survey approach.

Theoretical and empirical research into science didactics has demon-strated the importance of the role played by generating and evaluatingarguments in science teaching (Duschl, 2008; Jiménez-Aleixandre &Erduran, 2007; Osborne, 2012). Recently, a growing amount of researchhas focused on analyzing how arguments are formed and assessed inscience classes. The research addressed how students articulate and justifytheir conclusions or explanations (cf., Bell, 2004; Lawson, 2002;Sandoval & Millwood, 2005; Yu & Yore, 2013) as well as the processby which students interact when they propose, evaluate, and criticizeideas (cf., Abell, Anderson, & Chezem, 2000; Clark et al., 2012; Kuhn &Reiser, 2006; Lin & Mintzes, 2010; Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004).

Analysis of student-generated arguments can provide importantinformation about their understanding of scientific content (e.g. thetheories, laws, and principles of physics), scientific reasoning, epistemo-logical beliefs (e.g. what counts as justification in the sciences), andcommunication and justification skills. Therefore, students’ prior knowl-edge about a specific problem area may influence their arguments. Sincethis study explored electromagnetic induction, a complex and integratedarea of physics with many applications in engineering, we have taken intoaccount different international research projects on students’ misconcep-tions about EMI including:

� The majority of students use Faraday’s Law nonchalantly, withoutunderstanding the physics theory or in a way that basically lacksscientific meaning (Meng Thong & Gunstone, 2008; Saarelainen,Laaksonen, & Hirvonen, 2007; Venturini & Albe, 2002)

� When students apply Faraday’s Law, the majority tends to confusethe area of the circuit with the area of integration or, in other words,with the area swept by the conductor when it moves through a regionwhere there is a stationary magnetic field (Guisasola, Almudí, &Zuza, 2013; Galili, Kaplan, & Lehavy, 2006)

� Many students tend to explain EMI by using the field model(Faraday’s Law), even in situations when reasoning based on theLorentz Force Law would make EMI analysis considerably easier.The majority do not know that Faraday’s Law and the Lorentz Force

JOSE MANUEL ALMUDI AND MIKEL CEBERIO

Law are equivalent when explaining and quantifying any EMIphenomena that occurs (Guisasola et al., 2013)

Therefore, this study analyzed the quality of arguments used by universitystudents following traditional teaching in first-year engineering when theyhave to assess whether the EMI phenomenon will occur in an EMI problem.The following research questions guided the research process:

1. Are the students capable of producing arguments where the conclu-sions are validated by the consistency of their reasoning, consideringrelevant conceptual references and based on evidence analysis?

2. Do the students use Faraday’s and Lorentz’s Laws appropriately in theirarguments when tackling the electromagnetic induction phenomenon?

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Argumentation research has been supported by a wide range of analyticalperspectives to examine the nature and quality of arguments generated bystudents in science education. Sampson & Clark (2008) suggested thatthere seem to be three critical aspects for researchers who study student-generated arguments in science: the components of an argument, howappropriate the different components are from the perspective of theirscientific content, and the nature of the justification (how conclusions arevalidated in the argument).

Toulmin’s (1958) conception of argument has allowed researchers toexamine arguments in a wide variety of domains (Erduran, Simon, &Osborne, 2004; Jiménez-Aleixandre et al., 2000; Osborne et al., 2004).Toulmin’s argument pattern (TAP) model specified elements andinterconnections of the claim, the data supporting the claim, the warrantthat provides the nexus between the data and the claim, the modalqualifiers that express the argument’s degree of certainty, and the backingthat upholds the warrant. His extended TAP model included counter-claims and rebuttals. Finally, rejection conditions would indicatecircumstances where warrants would be invalid.

Unfortunately, much early argument research was based on checklistsof TAP that simply documented the presence and number of the variouselements. Sampson & Clark (2008) indicated that:

… a standard [checklist] application of Toulmin’s framework does not include anassessment of the logical structure and coherence of the justification beyond the presence

ARGUMENTS IN THE AREA OF ELECTROMAGNETIC INDUCTION

or absence of data, warrants, and backings. Hence, all that matters is their presence orabsence regardless of accuracy or relevance. (p. 452)

They suggested that strength and coherence of an argument must beconsidered if the argument was accurate based on trustworthy ideas,sensibility, and persuasiveness.

Sampson & Clark (2009) suggested a model to analyze the quality ofscientific arguments that addressed persistent concerns and improved theTAP checklist approach. Their model considered that a scientificargument is made up of three interrelated components: the conclusionor explanation (similar to Toulmin’s claim), the evidence (similar toToulmin’s data), and the reasoning (a combination of Toulmin’s warrantsand backings). The explanation or conclusion (hereafter, conclusion),depending on the situation, can (a) consist of the solution to a problem,(b) articulate a descriptive relationship between variables, or (c) state acausal mechanism. The theoretical or empirical evidence requires studentsto consider measurements, observations, signals, or reasons that supportthe validity or legitimacy of the conclusion. The evidence must berelevant in the justification of the conclusion and specific for the matterdiscussed. The reasoning based on warrants using established backingsshould show why the information (data) can be considered as evidencefor the conclusion and why the evidence supports the conclusion.

The Sampson and Clark model provides students and researchers withthe components of an argument and the specific criteria to assess thequality of an argument in science. This approach has been shown as anappropriate, productive way to both introduce students to the complextask of generating arguments and evaluating the quality of the argumentsconstructed. The quality of an argument is evaluated by consideringdifferent criteria that take into account how the conclusion agrees with theevidence, the predictive capacity of the conclusion, the sufficiency of theevidence and its quality as well as the conclusion’s consistency withtheoretical knowledge, and its use to understand the focus question.

Specifically, Sampson, Grooms & Walker (2011) focused theirattention on the main aspects that the literature uses to evaluate thequality of students’ written arguments: (a) whether the conclusion isappropriate and correct, (b) the relevance of conceptual referencesconsidered in the argument that should be related to the area’s laws andprinciples, (c) the quality of the evidence that has to be appropriate andsufficient, and (d) sufficiency of the reasoning that should justify that theevidence supports the conclusion. These four aspects, with specificemphasis on sufficiency of the reasoning, served as our interpretativeframework to analyze arguments constructed by students when tackling


EMI problems where they have to assess whether the EMI phenomenonoccurs or not (research question #1). We also highlight that students haveto reason properly, based on Faraday’s Law and the Lorentz Force Law,in order to appreciate whether their arguments feature alternative ideas tothe theoretical EMI framework (research question #2).

METHODOLOGY

The research was done with first-year engineering students at theUniversity of the Basque Country in Spain enrolled in two sections ofthe physics for engineering course. The physics sections werecomposed of a mixture of students from the Electrical Engineering,Industrial and Automatic Electronic Engineering, and MechanicalEngineering programs.

Scope and Sequence of the Physics for Engineering Course

The aim of the physics course is to address the main concepts, laws, andtheories of electromagnetism, adjusted to the level of first year universityand with an emphasis on problem solving. The year-long course consistedof 2 h of lectures, 1 h of problems class, and 2 h of laboratory work orseminars (alternately) per week. The first 15-week semester focused onclassical mechanics and the second 15-week semester focused onelectromagnetism. The students used a prescribed textbook (Young &Freedman, 2009) for lectures and solving problems at the end of thechapter, tackling the same contents and approach.

Three weeks (weeks 24 – 26) in the second semester concentrated onanalyzing the EMI phenomenon—the content focus of this study. Acommon teaching sequence for these topics considered: magnetic flow(first 2 weeks) and then real-life situations featuring the EMI phenom-enon, Faraday’s Law, nonconservative electric fields as a consequence ofa magnetic variation over time, and Lenz’s Law. Afterward, what isknown as movement electromotive force (emf) was analyzed. Anunproblematic presentation was made of the concepts and laws; inaddition, Faraday’s Law was always used when there were real closedcircuits (using the magnetic flow variation through the circuit area),whereas when there was a conductor (without there being a closed circuit)moving through a constant magnetic field, the Lorentz force model wasalways used. In no case was the same situation tackled using bothFaraday’s Law and the Lorentz Force Law. During the last week of this


unit, Faucoult’s currents, the Ampére-Maxwell law, the R-L circuit, andthe R-L-C series circuit were analyzed, which are not covered explicitly inthis study.

Instructors of the Physics Course

The two course instructors were from the Physics Department. They hadbroad teaching and research experience and had passed at least one publicselection examination to become members of staff at the University of theBasque Country. Both instructors used the same or similar coursesyllabus, organization, and traditional lecture approach.

Participating Students

The study included 142 students from the 170 first-year engineeringstudents taking the physics course. All students had previously taken2 years of sixth form physics (aged 16 – 18) and were enrolled in theirfirst physics course for engineers. Students from three engineering degreeprograms were assigned to the two course sections randomly by means ofa computer application. They were divided into 2 sections with 80 – 90students per lecture class, 40 – 45 students in the problems class, and20 – 25 students in the seminar and laboratory class. About 10 % of thestudents were repeating the first year of their engineering program.

Data Collection

Students were asked to consider four problem situations dealing withelectromagnetic events in an examination setting; some student volunteerswere involved in semistructured follow-up interviews to clarify theirexamination responses. Their considerations of the problems were to beconceptual (i.e. not involving mathematical calculations) so as to arrive atan argument with explicit claims and justifications. We asked students tojustify their arguments, individually and in writing. The data werecollected upon completion of the second semester as an examination toguarantee that students remained interested in the task. The writtenanswers to the different problem situations were the main data source(Rivard, 1994), which we understood to be a context with less pressureand more appropriate than an oral examination for students to explaintheir solution proposals with reasoning. The post hoc interviews were notviewed with any high degree of pressure by the 20 students, chosen froma group of volunteers who had achieved an average level in physicslearning. The interview responses intended to clarify their approaches


orally when queries arose on categorizing the written answers. Due tospace limitations, only selected transcriptions of these interviews are usedto clarify and enrich the patterns of responses flowing from the writtenexamination results.

All data collection situations come from the EMI field (Figs. Fig. 1 and 2)and can be considered standard aspects. Situations I and II (Fig. Fig. 1a, b),particularly situation I, are more familiar academic situations for the studentsin that both involve a closed circuit. In situations III and IV (Fig. Fig. 2a, b),although formally equivalent to the first two, there is a differentiating aspect:the circuit in which both situations take place is open. All situations involve aconductor moving through a constant magnetic field; therefore, solving theproblem is related to the applicability of Faraday and Lorentz Laws thattackle the EMI phenomenon. The actual statement includes questionsrelating to set situations that aim to guide students’ answers toward the moregeneral aspects of a scientific argument. This approach was taken because ina usual traditional teaching model, the time dedicated to students usingargumentation is scarce or nonexistent.

Data Interpretation

The interpretative framework used to make sense of the students’responses considered deep conceptual understanding of each situationand a scoring rubric (Table 1) that focused on an appropriate conclusion,the conceptual relevance, the quality of evidence, and sufficiency of thereasoning (Sampson et al., 2011). Student responses to each problemsituation and subtask were scored according to a four-step (i.e. correct orincorrect conclusion, relevant/partially relevant/irrelevant conceptualfoundation, supportive/nonsupportive evidence, appropriate/partially ap-propriate/inappropriate reasoning) process to establish scores for thespecific parts and total task resulting in 0 – 6 points. The followingcriteria were used to code the responses:

� Indicating that an emf was induced in the conclusion for the fourproblem situations scored 1 and 0 if not

� As a consequence of conceptual deficiency 3 (see “Introduction”),question b of the problem situations asked students to indicate whichlaws could be used to tackle the problem. For this reason, inconceptual relevance, 2 points were scored when the studentsconsidered both laws (i.e. Faraday and Lorentz), 1 point if theyconsidered one law, and 0 in the event of any type of answer that didnot consider either law


� The quality of the evidence was scored 1 point if students indicated that theemf appeared due to the conductor moving through a stationary magneticfield and 0 for any other type of answer that did not take this movementinto account

� As far as sufficient reasoning was concerned and for similarreasons to those given for conceptual relevance, maximum levelreasoning (scoring 2) was considered to involve justifying that theconducting bar’s movement inside the magnetic field leads to avariation in the flow through the area it sweeps; consequently,emf is induced in the band, reasoning that this movement leads toan initial magnetic force on the bar charges; therefore, an emfforce is induced in the bar. One point was given when reasoningwas based on 1 and 0 in any other situation

Situation IThere are two horizontal, parallel rails. We fit two conducting bars between them, one of which remains fixed and the other slides along the rails (permanently in contact with them, with no friction) to the right at constant speed, . This all takes place in an area with a uniform, incoming magnetic field (Fig. 1a).

Situation IIAs in the previous case, there are two horizontal, parallel rails. We can continue fitting the two conducting bars but now they both move (permanently in contact with the rails, with no friction), at the same speed,

, to the right. The system, as in the previous case, is in an area where there is a uniform, incoming magnetic field (Fig. 1b).

In order to analyze the appearance of the electromagnetic induction phenomenon, if this occurs, in each of the two situations, indicate without solving mathematically:

a) If an electromotive force is induced in either of the two aforementioned situations. b) Which law(s) or principle(s) have to be taken into account to explain whether an electromotive force

is induced? c) What event, of those explicitly described in the statement, is the cause of the induced electromotive

force. d) What produces the event described in the previous section so that, finally, the induced

electromotive force might appear or not.

Fig. 1a.

Fig. 1b.

Figure 1. a, b Proposed problem situations I and II


In the interpretative framework used to evaluate the students’responses, the appropriate conclusion corresponds to the right statementof whether the EMI phenomenon takes place in the different proposedproblem situations. The conceptual relevance of the argument reflectswhether they took into account all the laws and principles that canpotentially be applied to reach their conclusion, independently of whetherthe conclusion is appropriate or not. The quality of the evidence involvesdeconstructing the problem situation then determining and connecting theobservables to established electromagnetic ideas. Each situation describesan observable event (e.g. movement of a conducting bar, or whenappropriate two bars, at constant speed, either referring to sideways orrotating motion, in an area where there is a constant magnetic field).Finally, in the reasoning, a series of considerations would have to bemade that (a) combine justification and basic knowledge on the concepts,

Situation IIIA metal bar, l long, is made to turn with constant angular speed around an axis that passes through its end O. This rod is immersed in a region where there is a uniform magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the paper and incoming (Fig. 2a).

Situation IVThis same metal rod with length l is made to turn with constant angular velocity around an axis that passes through its end O, whilst the other end is supported on a circular conducting coil with radius l. The system is immersed in a uniform magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the coil and incoming (Fig. 2b).

In order to analyze the appearance of the electromagnetic induction phenomenon, if this occurs in each of the two situations, indicate without solving mathematically:

a) If the electromotive force is induced in the conducting bar.b) Which law(s), which principle(s) have to be taken into account to explain whether there is an

induced electromotive force.c) What event, of those explicitly described in the statement, is the cause of the induced

electromotive force.d) What produces the event described in the previous section so that, finally, an induced

electromotive force might appear.

Fig. 2a. Fig. 2b.

O

Figure 2. a, b Proposed problem situations III and IV


laws, and principles and (b) relate the conclusion (i.e. prediction of theappearance or not of the EMI phenomenon) with the evidence (i.e.movement of the conductors through a constant magnetic field). It would,therefore, respond to the question of why we might be able to predictwhether the EMI phenomenon is generated in each of the analyzedsituations. Under this focus, a good argument will consist of sufficientreasoning that can justify connecting the evidence to the conclusion,considering the conceptual knowledge to be relevant for it (e.g. laws,principles, and their applicability conditions).

The validity of the items and the rubric was justified by the learningdifficulties framework that has been emphasized in physics educationresearch (see “Introduction”). Once the situations and rubric wereprepared, we conducted a pilot study with first-year course studentswho were not involved in this study, which confirmed that students hadno problem understanding how the questions were formulated. Moreover,

TABLE 1

Specific criteria for assessing the quality of the arguments corresponding to problemsituations

Aspect Score Criteria

Appropriateconclusion

1 Indicates that an induced electromotive force occurs0 Indicates that an induced electromotive force does not occur

Conceptualrelevance

2 Takes into account Faraday’s Law and Lorentz’s Law1 Takes into account Faraday’s Law or Lorentz’s Law0 Does not take into account either law

Quality ofevidence

1 Indicates that the cause for making an induced electromotiveforce appear, or not, is that the conducting bar (bars inituation II) is moving inside a stationary magnetic field

0 Does not indicate that the cause for making an inducedelectromotive force appear, or not, is that the conductingbar (bars in situation II) is moving inside a stationarymagnetic field

Sufficiency ofthe reasoning

2 Reasons that the movement of the conducting bar (bars insituation II) inside the magnetic field leads to a variation in theflow through the area it (“they” in situation II) sweep;consequently, electromotive force is induced in the bar (bars insituation II) and reasons that this movement leads to an initialmagnetic force on the bar charges (bars in situation II); therefore,an electromotive force is induced in the bar (bars in situation II)

1 Explains one of the two ways of reasoning above0 Does not explain either of the two ways of reasoning above


the aims of every problem situation presented were validated by fourteachers (the two physics instructors and the two researchers).

The scores obtained for these four aspects were combined to give thetotal score (0 to 6) for the argument related to each situation where thehigher scores represent higher quality arguments. Table 2 shows thedifferent quality levels for the arguments depending on the overall resultwhile stressing the sufficiency of reasoning.

RESULTS

The students’ answers were analyzed by the two research authors. Thedegree of concordance (interrater agreement) was evaluated with Cohen’skappa (κ) coefficient and, as can be seen in Table 3, a level of agreementwas achieved between substantial and almost perfect according to theLandis & Koch scale (1977). Moreover, the intrarater reliability κcoefficient was also calculated for the main researcher with a comparisonof the original scoring and the rescoring of the responses 3 weeks later.The analysis of these scores revealed an average value of 0.88 agreementfor all questions, which is satisfactory for a level of confidence of 95 %.

It must be noted that, as had been forecast taking into account thecharacteristics of the two participating groups, no significant differenceswere found between the results obtained by students in either section ofthe physics course; therefore, we have considered them a single studentsample. Table 4 summarizes the results obtained in situations I, II, III, and

TABLE 2

Overall quality of argument

Score Argument quality level Conditioning factor

0 Very deficient1 – 2 Deficient3 Acceptable If the student scores in the sufficient reasoning

componentDeficient If student does not score in the sufficient reasoning

component4 Good If the student scores in the sufficient reasoning

componentDeficient If student does not score in the sufficient reasoning

component5 – 6 Excellent


IV for the 142 participants. The average scores obtained in each situationfor each of the four assessed aspects reflect maximum scores forappropriate conclusion of 1, conceptual relevance of 2, quality of theevidence of 1, sufficiency of the reasoning of 2, and a total score of 6.The last row illustrates the average scores obtained by the students in allsituations for each of the four assessed aspects.

An inspection of these results reveals that quality of evidence washigher than conceptual relevance and sufficiency of reasoning whilequality of arguments when analyzing situation I is higher than for the restof the situations. An apparent paradox occurs in situations I and II thatbasically required the same arguments to be analyzed; in situation I, allstudents reached an appropriate conclusion, yet none of these samestudents do so in situation II. The explanation lies in that when they applyFaraday’s Law, uncritically or how they were usually taught, theycalculated the variation of magnetic flow through the surface thatsurrounds the circuit and not through the surface swept by the conductor

TABLE 3

Cohen’s kappa coefficient degree of concordance achieved in the scores by the twoindependent raters

Aspect assessed Situation I Situation II Situation III Situation IV

Appropriate conclusion 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00Conceptual relevance 0.62 0.74 0.67 0.80Quality of the evidence 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Sufficiency of the reasoning 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.71

TABLE 4

Average scores obtained by participants (N = 142) for each and combined problemsituation

Situation

Appropriateconclusion(max. 1)

Conceptualrelevance(max. 2)

Quality ofevidence(max. 1)

Sufficiency ofreasoning(max. 2)

Total(max. 6)

I 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.2 3.0II 0 0.8 0.6 0 1.4III 0.2 0.8 0.8 0 1.8IV 0.3 1.0 0.7 0 2.0Combined 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.1 2.2


or mobile part of the circuit that led to the right conclusion for the wrongreasoning (Cheng, 1993; Galili et al., 2006; Lorrain, Corson, & Lorrain,2000). It should be noted that only assessing the magnetic flow variationthrough the area swept by the mobile conductor is appropriate to tackleany of the situations tested. Only when the magnetic flow variationthrough the real circuit area coincides numerically with the flow variationthrough the area swept by the mobile conductor will the two approacheslead to the same conclusion (This occurs in situation I where you also seelow performance in conceptual relevance and sufficiency of reasoningindicating lack of deep understanding). In other circumstances where thiscondition is not met, the use of reasoning based on considering themagnetic flow variation through the real circuit area, as done by thestudents, leads to inappropriate conclusions (see situations II, III, and IV).

Furthermore, this explains how all students stated that the inductionphenomenon does not occur in situation II as the flow does not varythrough the circuit area. However, this phenomenon actually occurstwice, once in each bar as the flow varies through the area swept by eachof the bars although it is true that the net emf, algebraic sum of the twoemfs appearing in each bar, is zero. Students found difficulty in situationsIII and IV for the same reason, where a well-defined closed circuit is notconfigured and they do not know how to apply the Faraday Law as theyare lacking the closed circuit and, therefore, a well-defined area tocalculate the flow through it. This explains why appropriate conclusionsin these situations were very infrequent and likely demonstrations of lackof conceptual relevance, consistent with misconceptions 1 and 2presented in the “Introduction.”

The averages for conceptual relevance across the four situations werevery similar, around 1, because the majority of students applied Faraday’sLaw. In situation I, all participants reached the correct conclusion whileless than half the respondents used the appropriate conceptual foundation.In this context and the other situations, it seems important to highlightthat none of the students considered Lorentz’s Law when tackling the fourEMI problem situations. This seems shocking, particularly for situation IIIand to a lesser extent situation IV, as practically all the textbooks and themajority of the teaching staff use Lorentz’s Law to analyze an equivalentproblem to situation III, except that the conducting bar had sidewaysmovement. This result, once again, coincides with results obtained byother researchers; specifically, it would be the equivalent of misconcep-tion 3 explained in the “Introduction.”

Quality of the evidence is the component of the argument demonstrat-ing the best scores in this study. The maximum was 1, and in situations I


and III, the score was close to this value; in situations II and IV, the scoredropped somewhat (0.6 and 0.7, respectively). Some students spoke aboutsituations II and IV without mentioning the movement of the conductorsand of the magnetic flow variation (or simply the magnetic flow throughthe coil, in situation IV).

Finally, the level achieved by the students regarding sufficiency of thereasoning, with a view to arguing the conclusion they reach, was highlydeficient; so much so that in situations II, III, and IV, the score was 0 andin situation 1 only 0.2. This may not be surprising knowing theparticipants’ performance in the other three components and thatreasoning reflects a combined influence of these components. Thereare basically two reasons behind such poor results: (a) No studentused Lorentz’s Law to tackle and reason about the four problemsituations and (b) when they took into account Faraday’s Law, theirreasoning did not reflect the magnetic flow variation over timethrough the area swept by the conductor (conductors in situation II)but through the physical circuit area (remember that in situations IIIand IV this circuit did not exist).

An ad hoc consideration of situation I revealed that the majority ofstudents, based on their use of Faraday’s Law, concluded that an emf willappear, which is true, because there is a variation in the magnetic flowthrough the circuit area. However, the Faraday Law requires, whenappropriate, students to calculate the magnetic flow through the areaswept by the mobile conductor and not through the circuit area. Bothcalculations coincide mathematically in some situations (this occurredin situation I). However, considering the reasoning that these studentsactually used in situations II, III, and IV, it is reasonable to speculatethat this was not the case. The interviews were used to clarify thispossibility. All 20 students stated that in no event had theyconsidered analyzing the magnetic flow variation through the areaswept by the mobile conductor and that, furthermore, they always didit this way to calculate the magnetic flow making use of the circuitarea. They simply “got it right” by accident since the twoconsiderations led to the same calculated value. The results obtainedin the analysis of this argumentation component shed light onalternative ideas about physics held by students regarding EMI.

Some students’ specific arguments revealed possible causes fortheir performance. The examples provide extracts from these students’written responses compiled to highlight representative aspects,omitting the mathematical nomenclature that might have been usedin their answers. Given that practically none of the students (no one


in situations II, III, and IV) produced arguments that had total scoresgreater than 3 out of 6 possible, it is impossible to provide a high-level example. The lack of high-level arguments is due to differentreasons in general; therefore, we explored and provided examples ofstudents’ answers grouped together by different argument componentsthat received a score of zero. The examples use fictitious nameswhile providing the actual student response for a specific problemsituation followed by author comments.

Given that the conductors’ movement in a region where there is aconstant magnetic field is the appropriate and sufficient evidence for thearguments regarding the four problem situations in this study, we can seesome cases where either evidence is not provided to uphold theconclusion (independent of whether the conclusion is appropriate ornot) or the students do not distinguish between relevant or irrelevantevidence when they construct an argument.

Roberto—situation II: No electromotive force is induced because there is no flowvariation through the circuit.

Comments: At no point does he mention the fact that the bar is moving,that is, the observable evidence that he should have to use to relate it tothe conclusion through the reasoning. He approaches the problem bycalculating the flow through the circuit area.

Jon—situation III: No emf is produced in the bar as there is no flow variation through thebar area.

Comments: At no point does he mention the bar movement, that is, asimilar mistake to the previous example. He approaches the problem bycalculating the flow through the bar area.

Ana—situation III: An emf is produced in the bar.

Comments: No evidence is mentioned at any point (or any reasoning to backup the argument). When this student was interviewed, she confirmed that shesimply remembered seeing a bar that moved through a magnetic field toproduce an emf in class and she drew similarities with this situation.

Sergio—situation IV: Yes, there is electromotive force in the coil and in the bar becausethere is magnetic flow through the coil.

Comments: Once again, there is no mention of the bar movement, that is,fundamental evidence for the argument. He approaches the problem by


calculating the flow through the coil area that has no relationship with theinduction phenomena in the bar.

Amaia—situation IV: An induced emf is created because there is a conducting coil on theend of the rod.

Comments: Evidence is provided to reach the conclusion but it isirrelevant. Although she mentions the bar, she approaches the problem bycalculating the flow through the coil area that has no relationship with theinduction phenomena in the bar.

In the previous answers, other types of deficiencies occur related toother aspects of the argument, fundamentally referring to insufficiency ofthe reasoning. Next, we focus on reasoning as a deeper approach to thislast aspect.

In general, although students chose an appropriate physical law(always and only Faraday), they did not use it in the appropriate way,which turns into insufficiency of the reasoning (score 0). The followingexamples illustrate this aspect:

Andrea—situation I: Given that when the mobile bar is moved there is a variation in flowthrough the circuit area, an induced emf will be produced.

Comments: As mentioned previously, there are some cases where,from a quantitative point of view, the variation of the magneticflow through the circuit area coincides with the variation of theflow through the area swept by the mobile conductor; this is thecase in situation I. Therefore, the incorrect use of Faraday’s Lawcan give an appropriate conclusion for the inappropriate reasons.Remember that all students, like Andrea, who used this reasoning as didmost students, used it again in situation II and when appropriate in situationsIII and IV, leading to an inappropriate conclusion.

David—situation II: Given that the two bars move at the same speed, the flow does notchange through the circuit so an emf is not produced.

Comments: This is a very common error when using Faraday’s Law toconfuse the area to assess and, when appropriate, calculate whether theinduction phenomenon has occurred. This area, in any circumstances, isthe area swept by the mobile conductor that is moving through the regionwhere there is a constant magnetic field.

Endika—situation III: No emf is produced in the bar as there is no circuit through whichthere is magnetic flow.


Comments: This student’s mistake is the same as the previous case; in thiscase, it is more complicated given that there is no material closed circuit.In this example, another error is not distinguishing between magneticflow and its variation.

Kepa—situation IV: If an emf is induced in the coil and in the bar, there is a variation ofmagnetic flow through the coil and the bar that make up a closed circuit.

Comments: He used the idea of flow through the coil again and thenadded the bar, making an erroneous closed circuit formed by the coil andthe bar. Once again, students need to have a physical and real closedcircuit to apply Faraday’s Law.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PHYSICS TEACHING

The quality of the arguments about EMI problems used by universitystudents following traditional teaching in a first-year engineering courserevealed insights into these students’ depth of understanding andapplications of EMI phenomenon. The appropriateness of their conclu-sion, the relevance of the laws and principles considered when coming toa conclusion (conceptual relevance), the quality of evidence used in theirconclusion, and the consistency of their reasoning (sufficiency of thereasoning) revealed shallow understanding of the underlying physics andfacility with evidence-based argumentation. The research methods wereselected and implemented to overcome some weaknesses in the use ofchecklists of argument elements and to promote insights into the internalconsistency of arguments, the underlying concepts and evidence tosupport the conclusion, and reasoning about the problem situation.

The results from these assessments suggest that the total score for anargument may not fully capture the underlying strengths and weaknessesof the respondents’ understanding and critical thinking—deciding andjustifying what to believe or to do about a problem situation (Ford &Yore, 2012). Some problem situations result in the correct conclusion forthe use of wrong underlying concepts and evidence in reasoning. Themost outstanding deficiencies emerged when considering the evidence(e.g. occasionally irrelevant and sometimes even nonexistent), therelationship between it and the conclusion was often not reasonedproperly, fundamentally in terms of an inappropriate use of theoreticalbackings and related warrants (reasoning)—likely the most difficultaspects of argumentation and argumentative reasoning. We remember thatstudents experience problems when applying Faraday’s Law: they


calculate the magnetic flow variation through the area making up the realcircuit instead of calculating it through the area swept by the mobileconductor or, when a closed circuit does not exist, they do not find thearea of integration to calculate the magnetic flow variation, which wouldbe the area swept by the mobile conductor. This should come as nosurprise given that usual teaching, as long as Faraday’s Law is applied,calculates the magnetic flow variation through the circuit area and notthrough the area swept by the conductor. We have seen that the methodtaught occasionally gives a false result—but of course not in cases usuallyanalyzed with the students.

It has also been seen, in relation to conceptual relevance, that whenanalyzing the EMI phenomenon, students only use Faraday’s Law, ignoringLorentz’s Law that would allow them to tackle the phenomenon depending onthe electrical or magnetic forces that might bring about an electrical current,when appropriate. Once again, a comprehensible result that might be expectedin usual teaching on the whole looks at the type of problems that are solved byexclusively applying Faraday’s Law and almost none that are tackled usingmagnetic or electric forces (in many cases, Lorentz Force Law is not evenexplicitly referenced); this latter type occurs when there is a conductor(without there being a real circuit) that moves in a constant magnetic field. It isplausible to suppose that this teaching model will give us a “functionalfixedness” (Furió &Calatayud, 2000, p. 546) and that the students come to themistaken conclusion that there are problems that can only be solved using asingle law (in most cases Faraday’s Law) and others (a minority) that can onlybe solved using the Lorentz Force Law. Consequently, they do not know thatthese two laws are equivalent and that either can be used to analyze and solveany problem from the EMI field; however, depending on the case, one lawwillbe easier to apply than the other.

The types of understanding and argumentation deficits have possibleimplications for teaching. It is recommended that, when applying Faraday’sLaw (in the cases of movement emf), the magnetic flow variation through thearea swept by the conductor should be calculated. In addition, at least in somecases, problems could be solved using either Faraday’s Law or the LorentzForce Law, which would demonstrate to students that both laws are equivalent.

The accumulated deficiencies for the four problem situations can beseen in the total score (Table 4). These results, although they might beexpected as they had appeared in other research, are very worrying andshould be used to initiate changes in the usual teaching by reconsideringsome of strategies used in the field of EMI and to emphasize criticalthinking and argumentation using empirical evidence and establishedphysics principles.


The results are consistent with those obtained in the field ofargumentation by other researchers who indicate that students usuallyhave great difficulty with different aspects of argumentation in thesciences (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007; Osborne et al., 2004).Many students do not understand what a good argument in science reallyis (McNeill & Krajcik, 2007; Sandoval & Reiser, 2004), so they tend togive vague and insufficient explanations or they simply give a descriptionof what they can see without providing a causal mechanism for thequestion investigated. Empirical research also indicates that, often,students do not reason the relationship between evidence and conclusionproperly (Kuhn & Reiser, 2005; McNeill & Krajcik, 2007).

Consequent inclusion of argumentation in science classes should notbe set as a disconnected goal from science learning (Jiménez-Aleixandre,2007). On the contrary, argumentation forms part of constructivist sciencegoals in the classroom where the students’ role is to generate knowledgeand the teacher’s role is to guide the inquiry and facilitate negotiations,which should be approached as a social activity or process.

A large number of researchers in education defend the idea thatstudents need more opportunities to learn how the scientific communityuses arguments to build knowledge and the criteria that determine whatcounts as a good argument in science (Aydeniz, Pabuccu, Cetin, & Kaya,2012; Driver et al., 2000; Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Kuhn & Reiser,2005; Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999). We have suggested that theteaching–learning model as guided research (Guisasola, Furió, & Ceberio,2008; Guisasola, Almudí, Ceberio, & Zubimendi, 2009) combines theright characteristics and opportunities to promote argumentation inuniversity physics classes, which attempts to overcome students’misconceptions detected in this study and studies in physics teachingresearch (Guisasola et al., 2013; Galili et al., 2006; Meng Thong &Gunstone, 2008). Future research in university physics education needs toexplore how similar teaching approaches can focus on science as inquiryand argument that stress depth of understanding and rhetorical functionsto construct understanding based on empirical evidence and theorieswithin the institutional constraints on time and resources.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank the teachers and students who participated in the study.We are grateful for the helpful comments provided by the anonymousreviewers on an earlier version of this paper. The authors would like to


express their gratitude to Larry D. Yore and Shari Yore for their valuableadvice, during the editing assistance, and all the effort that they havemade to improve our work.

REFERENCES

Abell, S. K., Anderson, G. & Chezem, J. (2000). Science as argument and explanation:Exploring concepts of sound in third grade. In J. Minstrell & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.),Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 100–119). Washington, DC:American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Cetin, P. S. & Kaya, P. (2012). Argumentation and students’conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases. International Journal ofScience and Mathematics Education, 10, 1303–1324.

Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in thescience classroom. In M. Linn, E. A. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments forscience education (pp. 115–143). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chalmers, A. F. (2000). What is this thing called science? (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, UnitedKingdom: McGraw Hill Education.

Cheng, D. K. (1993). Fundamentals of engineering electromagnetics. Wilmington, DE:Addison Wesley Longman.

Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Chang, H.-Y., Zhang, H., Tate, E. D. & Schwendimann, B.(2012). Research on critique and argumentation from the technology enhanced learningin science center. In M. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory,practice and research (pp. 157–199). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Driver, R. A., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientificargumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–313.

Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual,epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.

Duschl, R. A. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse.Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.

Erduran, S., Simon, S. & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developmentsin the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. ScienceEducation, 88, 915–933.

Ford, C. L. & Yore, L. D. (2012). Toward convergence of metacognition, reflection, andcritical thinking: Illustrations from natural and social sciences teacher education andclassroom practice. In A. Zohar & J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education:Trends in current research (pp. 251–271). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Furió, C. & Calatayud, M. L. (2000). Functional fixedness and functional reduction ascommon sense reasoning in chemical equilibrium and geometry and polarity ofmolecules. Science Education, 84, 545–565.

Galili, I., Kaplan, D. & Lehavy, Y. (2006). Teaching Faraday’s law of electromagneticinduction in an introductory physics course. American Journal of Physics, 74(4), 337–343.

Guisasola, J., Almudí, J. M., Ceberio, M. & Zubimendi, J. L. (2009). Designing andevaluating research-based instructional sequences for introducing magnetic field.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(4), 699–722.


Guisasola, J., Almudí, J. M. & Zuza, K. (2013). University student’s understanding ofelectromagnetic induction. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 2692–2717.

Guisasola, J., Furió, C. & Ceberio, M. (2008). Science education in focus. In M. V.Thomase (Ed.), Science education based on developing guided research (pp. 173–201).New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S.Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education:Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 91–116). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Springer.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: Anoverview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in scienceeducation: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–28). Dordrecht, TheNetherlands: Springer.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., Rodríguez, M. & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson”or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6),757–792.

Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2005, April). Students constructing and defending evidence-basedscientific explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.

Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2006). Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco, CA.

Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement forcategorical data. Biometric, 33, 159–174.

Lawson, A. (2002). Sound and faulty arguments generated by preservice biology teacherswhen testing hypotheses involving unobservable entities. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 39(3), 237–252.

Lin, S. S. & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction insocioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science andMathematics Education, 8(6), 993–1017.

Lorrain, P., Corson, D. L. & Lorrain, F. (2000). Fundamentals of electromagneticphenomena. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students’ use of appropriate andinappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.),Thinking with data: Proceedings of 33rd Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 233–265). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Meng Thong, W. & Gunstone, R. (2008). Some student conceptions of electromagneticinduction. Research in Science Education, 38, 31–44.

National Research Council (2012). In H. Quinn, H. A. Schweingruber & T. Keller (Eds.),A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and coreideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Newton, P., Driver, R. & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogyof school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.

Osborne, J. (2012). The role of argument: Learning how to learn in school science. In B. J.Fraser, K. G. Tobin & C. McRobbie (Eds.), International handbook of scienceeducation (pp. 933–949). New York. NY: Springer.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation inscience classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.


Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn science: Implications for practice andresearch. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 969–983.

Saarelainen, M., Laaksonen, A. & Hirvonen, P. E. (2007). Students’ initial knowledge ofelectric and magnetic fields—More profound explanations and reasoning models forundesired conceptions. European Journal of Physics, 28, 51–60.

Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments inscience education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions.Science Education, 92, 447–472.

Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes ofscientific argumentation. Science Education, 93, 448–484.

Sampson, V., Grooms, J. & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way tohelp students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft writtenarguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95, 217–257.

Sandoval, W. A. & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence inwritten scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.

Sandoval, W. A. & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integratingconceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Venturini, P. & Albe, V. (2002). Interpretation des similitudes et differences dans lamaitrise conceptualle d’etudiants en electromagnetisme a partir de leur(s) rapport(s)au(x) savoir(s) [Interpretation of the similitudes and differences in the conceptualmastering of electromagnetism based on the students’ relation to knowledge]. Aster, 35,165–188.

Young, H. D. & Freedman, R. A. (2009). University physics with modern physics (12thed.). Naucalpan de Juárez, México: Pearson Education.

Yu, S.-M. & Yore, L. D. (2013). Quality, evolution, and positional change of universitystudents’ argumentation patterns about organic agriculture during an argument–critique–argument experience. International Journal of Science and MathematicsEducation, 11, 1233–1254.

University of the Basque CountryBilbao, Vizcaya, SpainE-mail: [email protected]


Date post:	23-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mikel
View:	214 times
Download:	1 times

ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS CONSTRUCTED BY FIRST-YEAR ENGINEERING STUDENTS ADDRESSING ELECTROMAGNETIC...

Documents