Correlation Between Alternative Frameworks and Performance of Physics Pre-Service Teachers in Basic Electronics Content: A Case of a Higher Learning Institution in Lusaka District

Research in physics education indicates that students do not enter the classroom with blank minds but hold various alternative frameworks about what they are going to learn. Due to their strength and flawed content, alternative frameworks interfere with students' learning of correct physics theories, principles, and concepts, consequently affecting their performance, particularly in challenging areas such as electronics. While this is well-documented internationally, research does not specify the degree of relationship between alternative frameworks and performance of students in any physics topics in the Zambian context. This study sought to determine the correlation between physics pre-service teachers' alternative frameworks and their performance in basic electronics at a higher learning institution in Lusaka District, Zambia. A quantitative approach employing a correlation design and a one-case pre-test post-test control group design was used. The population comprised 191 Bachelor of Science with Education (BSc. Ed) and Bachelor of Education-Secondary (Mathematics and Science) (BEDMAS) pre-service teachers of physics; the sample consisted of 60 participants selected using simple random sampling. A structured questionnaire and a multiple-choice test on basic electronics were used for data collection. Instruments were piloted for validity and a test-retest method was used to check reliability. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics (Pearson's Product Moment Correlation coefficients) and inferential statistics (t-values). The findings revealed Pearson's Product Moment Correlation coefficients of -0.7 and -0.9 (sig at 0.00, 2-tailed) at 99% confidence interval before and after the treatment respectively. The study concluded that there was a strong negative correlation between physics pre-service teachers' alternative frameworks and their performance in basic electronics. The study recommended that physics educators should pay attention to such conceptions and clarify them so that pre-service teachers could develop conceptual understanding of basic electronics before entering the teaching profession.

Alternative frameworks, basic electronics, correlation, performance, physics pre-service teachers, Zambia

1. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1989). The subject-matter preparation of teachers. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 437-449). New York: Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Blosser, P. E. (1987). Science misconceptions research and some implications for the teaching of science to elementary school students. ERIC/SMEAC Science Education Digest No. 1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Boyes, E. (1988). Catastrophic misconceptions in science education. Physics Education, 23, 105-109. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Chen, Y. L., Pan, P. R., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2013). Correcting misconceptions on electronics: Effects of a simulation-based learning environment backed by a conceptual change model. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 212-227. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Clement, J. (1989). The concept of variation and misconceptions in Cartesian graphing. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11, 77-87. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Coetzee, A. (1998). Alternative conceptions concerning interference and diffraction of light (M.Ed. Dissertation). University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Cohen, R., Eylon, B., & Ganiel, U. (1983). Potential difference and current in simple electric circuits: A study of student's concepts. American Journal of Physics, 51(5), 407-412. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Driver, R. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to the concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Driver, R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories in action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students' conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37-60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Engelhardt, P. V., & Beichner, R. J. (2004). Students' understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. American Journal of Physics, 72(1), 98-115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Examinations Council of Zambia. (2010). Chief Examiners' Report. Lusaka: ECZ. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Fisher, K. (1985). A misconception in biology: Amino acids and translation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(1), 53-62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Groves, F. H., & Pugh, A. F. (1999). Elementary pre-service teacher perceptions of the greenhouse effect. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 75-81. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Haambokoma, C., Nkhata, B., Kostyuk, V. S., Chabalengula, V., Mbewe, S., Tabakamulamu, M., Ndhlovu, Z. B., Mushanga, R., & Nthani, D. (2002). Strengthening of mathematics and science education in Zambian secondary schools: A baseline study with Japan Official Development Assistance. Lusaka: Ministry of Education, Zambia and Japan International Co-operation Agency. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hewson, P. W. (1992). Conceptual change in science teaching and teacher education. Paper presented at the meeting on "Research and Curriculum Development in Science Teaching," National Center for Educational Research, Documentation, and Assessment, Madrid, Spain. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Hunt, E., & Minstrell, J. (1977). Effective instruction in science and mathematics. Issues in Education, 3(1), 1-24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Ivowi, U. M. (1984). Misconception in physics among Nigerian secondary school students. Journal of Physics Education, 19, 279-285. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Knight, R. D. (2002). Five easy lessons: Strategies for successful physics teaching. San Francisco: Addison Wesley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Küçüközer, H., & Kocakülah, S. (2007). Secondary school students' misconceptions about simple electric circuits. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(1), 101-115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Kyle, W. C., & Shymansky, J. A. (1989). Enhancing learning through conceptual change teaching. NARST News, 21. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Lee, Y., & Law, N. (2001). Explorations in promoting conceptual change in electrical concepts via ontological category shift. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 111-149. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Lindquist, M. M. (Ed.). (1989). Results from the fourth mathematics assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. McDermott, L. C. (1993). Guest comment: How we teach and how students learn – a mismatch? American Journal of Physics, 61(4), 295-298. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Millar, R. (2012). Doing science: Images of science in education. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Osborne, R. (1983). Towards modifying children's ideas about electric current. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1(1), 73-82. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Ozmen, H. (2004). Some student misconceptions in chemistry: A literature review of chemical bonding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 147-159. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Palmer, D. (1999). Exploring the link between students' scientific and non-scientific conceptions. Science Education, 83(6), 639-653. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Papadimitriou, V. (2004). Prospective primary teachers' understanding of climate change, greenhouse effect, and ozone layer depletion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 299-307. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Periago, C., & Bohigas, X. (2005). Misconceptions about electric circuits in Spanish students. International Journal of Science Education, 27(10), 1197-1210. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Piaget, J. (1962). The stages of intellectual development of the child. In H. Mensinger (Ed.), Readings in child development (pp. 124-130). New York. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Posner, G. I., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Rowell, J. A., Dawson, C. L., & Lyndon, H. (1990). Changing misconceptions: A challenge to science educators. International Journal of Science Education, 12(2), 167-175. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Semanek, D. E. (2008). Physics student misconceptions induced by teachers and textbooks. Retrieved from http://www.ihup.edu/ndsimanek/scenario/miscon.htm [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Sencar, S., & Eryilmaz, A. (2004). Students' misconceptions about simple electric circuits. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 1(1), 12-23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Sewell, A. (2002). Constructivism and student misconceptions: Why every teacher needs to know about them. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 48(4), 24-28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Shaughnessy, J. M. (1985). Problem-solving derailers: The influence of misconceptions on problem-solving performance. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving (pp. 399-415). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115-163. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Sweetland, R. (2012). Possible causes of science misconceptions. Retrieved from http://www.homeofbob.com/science/discrepantEvnts/sources.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students' misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159-169. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Tytler, R. (2002). Teaching for understanding in science: Student conceptions research, and changing views of learning. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 48(3), 14-21. Retrieved from http://scienceresearchgroup.wikispaces.com/file/view/Teaching+For+Understanding+In+Science+-+Tytler.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Veiga, C. S. (1989). Teacher's language and pupil's ideas in science lessons: Can teachers avoid reinforcing wrong ideas? International Journal of Science Education, 11(4), 465-479. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 3-15). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177-210). New York: Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Yip, D. Y., Chung, C. M., & Mak, S. Y. (1998). The subject matter knowledge in physics related topics of Hong Kong junior secondary science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(4), 319-328. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]