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.
Highlights
A review of research on students’ alternative conceptions and their teachers revealed less research about electrostatic phenomena [1–6] than those related to the electric circuit [7–13], despite the critical transition between these two areas of knowledge
The following misconceptions are the consequence of the imprecise transition between dynamic electricity and static electricity as highlighted by many researchers [14–17]: 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. These misconceptions are the consequence of the imprecise use of everyday language [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 as well as the formation of lightning
We have 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, electrical conductors, and insulators, and the insulating properties of various substances)
Summary
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. A review of research on students’ alternative conceptions and their teachers revealed less research about electrostatic phenomena [1–6] than those related to the electric circuit [7–13], 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. 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
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
