Enregistré dans:
| Auteurs principaux: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Publié: |
2024
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.11912 |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| _version_ | 1866929248030162944 |
|---|---|
| author | Hoyer, Christoph Girwidz, Raimund |
| author_facet | Hoyer, Christoph Girwidz, Raimund |
| contents | Vector fields are a highly abstract physical concept that is often taught using visualizations. Although vector representations are particularly suitable for visualizing quantitative data, they are often confusing, especially when describing real fields such as magnetic and electric fields, as the vector arrows can overlap. The present study examines vector understanding at the end of secondary education. In particular, the extent to which the geometry of the field can be derived from conventional unit vector representations and representations with centered unit vectors is examined. To support this understanding, two exercises were compared. The unirepresentational exercise argued within the conventional unit vector representation, while the multirepresentational exercise attempted to support the link between centered and conventional unit vectors. The results show that almost all test subjects solved the items for generating vector representations correctly, but significant difficulties were encountered in interpreting vector representations. Drawing and interpreting vector representations therefore appear to be different skills that should be practiced intensively and in an integrated way. Furthermore, the learners recognized the field's geometry much more readily from centered unit vectors than from conventional unit vectors. Errors occur especially when interpreting the geometry of conventional unit vector representations of rotational fields and fields containing both sources and sinks, while the geometries of fields containing only sinks were interpreted quite well. The comparison between the two exercises showed that a promising approach to deepen students' understanding would be to use an exercise that contrasts the two representations and explains how to translate from one representation to the other, rather than describing the main elements of only a single representation. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2402_11912 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Vector representations and unit vector representations of fields -- problems of understanding and possible teaching strategies Hoyer, Christoph Girwidz, Raimund Physics Education Vector fields are a highly abstract physical concept that is often taught using visualizations. Although vector representations are particularly suitable for visualizing quantitative data, they are often confusing, especially when describing real fields such as magnetic and electric fields, as the vector arrows can overlap. The present study examines vector understanding at the end of secondary education. In particular, the extent to which the geometry of the field can be derived from conventional unit vector representations and representations with centered unit vectors is examined. To support this understanding, two exercises were compared. The unirepresentational exercise argued within the conventional unit vector representation, while the multirepresentational exercise attempted to support the link between centered and conventional unit vectors. The results show that almost all test subjects solved the items for generating vector representations correctly, but significant difficulties were encountered in interpreting vector representations. Drawing and interpreting vector representations therefore appear to be different skills that should be practiced intensively and in an integrated way. Furthermore, the learners recognized the field's geometry much more readily from centered unit vectors than from conventional unit vectors. Errors occur especially when interpreting the geometry of conventional unit vector representations of rotational fields and fields containing both sources and sinks, while the geometries of fields containing only sinks were interpreted quite well. The comparison between the two exercises showed that a promising approach to deepen students' understanding would be to use an exercise that contrasts the two representations and explains how to translate from one representation to the other, rather than describing the main elements of only a single representation. |
| title | Vector representations and unit vector representations of fields -- problems of understanding and possible teaching strategies |
| topic | Physics Education |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.11912 |