|  e-ISSN: 2147-5156

Original article | Turkish Journal of Teacher Education 2023, Vol. 12(1) 26-50

Let’s Ask Students for the Most Fruitful Context of Charging Phenomenon

Nuray Onder Celikkanli, Mustafa Tan

pp. 26 - 50   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2301-16-0004.R1

Published online: June 30, 2023  |   Number of Views: 30  |  Number of Download: 440


This study aimed to determine the most fruitful context of the electrical charging phenomenon. For this aim, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 tenth-grade high school students in the 2016-2017 academic years. 12 open-ended questions were asked to students and students' answers were analyzed by using content analysis. The examples (event/experiment/product/etc.) given by students as answers were accepted as cases examined in this case study. When the students were asked which example (event/experiment/product/etc.) they would like to be used to express themselves better, they generally preferred to give laboratory-based experiments mentioned in school textbooks or lessons, their life-based experiences, or some analogies. For example, 67% of the student chose an event they experienced in their daily lives (e.g., combing hair with a plastic comb) and 67% of the student chose a laboratory experiment (e.g., an experiment of rubbing two insulating objects such as an ebonite rod rubbed with a wool piece as the closest context to them to explain charging phenomena. When we look at the reason why they gave these examples, we found that many students find these examples easy (f=17), known (f=17), and understandable (f=15), that these examples are given in the lessons (f=11), and they are frequently experienced in daily life (f=10). In addition, an unexpected result was obtained in this study. 

Keywords: Contact Charging, Context-Based Learning, Electrification, Physics Education

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Celikkanli, N.O. & Tan, M. (2023). Let’s Ask Students for the Most Fruitful Context of Charging Phenomenon . Turkish Journal of Teacher Education, 12(1), 26-50.

Celikkanli, N. and Tan, M. (2023). Let’s Ask Students for the Most Fruitful Context of Charging Phenomenon . Turkish Journal of Teacher Education, 12(1), pp. 26-50.

Chicago 16th edition
Celikkanli, Nuray Onder and Mustafa Tan (2023). "Let’s Ask Students for the Most Fruitful Context of Charging Phenomenon ". Turkish Journal of Teacher Education 12 (1):26-50.


    Abimbola, I. O. & Baba, S. (1996). Misconceptions & alternative conceptions in science textbooks: The role of teachers as filters. The American Biology Teacher, 58(1), 14-19. https://doi.org/10.2307/4450067

    Aydin-Ceran, S., & Ergul, E. (2022). Designing a science lesson: Developing pre-service teachers’ lesson planning skills based on real-life context-based approach. Language Teaching and Educational Research (LATER), 5(2), 142-165. https://doi.org/10.35207/later.1195137

    Bao, L. & Redish, E. F. (2006) Model analysis: Representing and assessing the dynamics of student learning. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 2, Article ID: 010103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/physrevstper.2.010103

    Bar, V., Zinn, B., Goldmuntz, R., & Sneider, C. (1994) Children’s concepts about weight and free fall. Science Education, 78(2), 149-169. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730780204

    Barrass, R. (1984). Some misconceptions and misunderstandings are perpetuated by teachers and textbooks of biology. Journal of Biological Education, 18(3), 201-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1984.9654636

    Baser, M. & Geban, O. (2007). Effect of instruction based on conceptual change activities on students’ understanding of static electricity concepts. Research in Science and Technological Education, 25(2), 243-267. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140701250857

    Duranti, Alessandro, & Charles Goodwin (eds.) (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Elmas, R., Bulbul, M. S., & Eryilmaz, A. (2011). Thematic classification of eligible contexts for a holistic perspective in curriculum development. Paper presented at European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), (s. 1-6). Lyon, France.

    Fensham, P. J. (2009). Real-world contexts in PISA science: Implications for context‐based science education.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 884-896. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20334  

    Fischbein, E., Stavy, R., & Ma-Naim, H. (1989). The psychological structure of naive impetus conceptions.  International Journal of Science Education, 11(1), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069890110107

    Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate education research (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of ‘context’ in chemical education.  International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957–976. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702470

    Gilbert J. K., Bülte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2011) Concept development and transfer in context‐based science education. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 817-837.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.493185

    Griffin (2004). Context Sensitivity of the Force Concept Inventory, Unpublished Thesis, University of Arkansas.

    Goris, T. V. (2012). Analysis of misconceptions of engineering technology students about electricity and circuits. A mixed methods study. Faculty of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/dissertations/AAI3544154/

    Guo-Li, C. (2009). Exploring beyond mental models: An interview-based study of students' In-dept Understanding of Heat Conduction from A Multi-dimensional Cognitive Perspective. Unpublished Dissertation, Columbia University

    Gunes, B. (2005), Bilimsel Hatalar ve Kavram Yanılgıları [Scientific Errors and Misconceptions]. Rahmi Yağbasan (Ed.), Konu Alanı Ders Kitabı İnceleme Kılavuzu içinde [In the Subject Area Textbook Review Guide] (IV. Bölüm, s.59-116). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi

    Güth, F. & van Vorst, H.  (2021). Context-based learning as a method for differentıated instruction in chemistry education. ESERA 2021 30 Aug-3Sep 2021 Organized by Minho, Braga, Portugal

    Habig, S., van Vorst, H., & Sumfleth, E. (2018). Merkmale kontextualisierter Lernaufgaben und ihre Wirkung auf das situationale Interesse und die Lernleistung von Schülerinnen und Schülern 136 [Characteristics of contextualized learning tasks and their effect on students' situational interest and learning performance]. Zeitschrift Für Didaktik Der Naturwissenschaften, 24(1), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40573-018-0077-8

    Hrepic, Z. (2002).  Identifying students’ mental models of sound propagation, Unpublished Master Thesis, Kansas State University

    Hrepic, Z. (2004). Development of a real time assessment of students’ mental models of sound propagation.  Doctoral Thesis, Kansas State University

    Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141-158.  DOI: 10.1119/1.2343497

    Kaltakci, D. (2012). Development and application of a four-tier misconception test to assess pre-service students’ misconceptions about geometric optics. Unpublished Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

    Karasubasi, O. & Gungor-Seyhan, H. (2023). A meta-analysis on the effect of context-based learning on students' science academic achievement in the Turkish education system. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 11(21), 44-66. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.1206532

    Kaya, V. H. & Elster, D. (2019). Study on the main dimensions affecting environmental literacy, and environmental perceptions influencing science literacy. International eJournal of Educational Studies (IEJES), 3(6), 70-77. https://doi.org/10.31458/iejes.512201

    King, C. J. H. (2010). An analysis of misconceptions in science textbooks: Earth science in England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 565-601. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902721681

    Kutluay, Y. (2005). Diagnosis of eleventh grade students’ misconceptions about geometric optic by a three-tier test. Unpublished Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

    Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:13.0.CO;2-C

    Lindell, R. S., Peak, E., and Foster, T. M. (2006). Are they all created equal? A comparison of different concept ınventory development methodologies. Paper presented at 2006 Physics Education Research Conference, Syracuse.

    Loughran, J., & Derry, N. (1997) 'Researching teaching for understanding: the students' perspective', International Journal of Science Education, 19(8), 925-938. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190806

    McCullough, L. (2004). Gender, context, and physics assessment. Journal of International Women's Studies, 5(4), 20-30. http://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol5/iss4/2

    Ozcan, O. (2015). Investigating students’ mental models about the nature of light in different contexts. European Journal of Physics, 36(6), 065042 (16pp). https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/36/6/065042

    Palmer, D. (1993). How consistently do students use their alternative conceptions? Research in Science Education, 23, 228-235.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357065

    Pesman, H. (2005). Development of a three-tier test to assess ninth grade students’ misconceptions about simple electric circuits. Unpublished Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

    Unsal, Y. & Gunes, B. (2002). Bir kitap inceleme çalışması örneği olarak M.E.B ilköğretim 4. Sınıf fen bilgisi ders kitabına fizik konuları yönünden eleştirel bir bakış, [A critical look at the M.E.B elementary school 4th grade science textbook in terms of physics subjects as an example of a book review study] Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Gazi University Journal of Gazi Education Faculty], 22(3), 107-120. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/gefad/issue/6764/91001

    Saglam, Y., Kanadli, S., & Usak, M. (2012). The impacts of context on students’ use of concept images. Turkish Science Education, 9(4), 131-145.

    Smith, S. M. (1988). Environmental context-dependent memory. In G. M. Davies and D. M. Thomson (Eds), Memory in context: Context in memory (p. 13-34). New York: Wiley.

    Stewart, J., Griffin, H., & Stewart, G. (2007). Context sensitivity in the force concept inventory. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 3, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.010102

    Simsek Cetin, O. (2014). The investigation of pre-school children’s print awareness and skills for writing preparation. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 7(3), 342-360, Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/akukeg/issue/29354/314106

    Turker, F. (2005). Developing a three tier test to assess high school students’ misconceptions concerning force and motion. Master’s Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

    Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., and 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.

    Watts, D. M. (1983) A study of schoolchildren’s alternative frameworks of the concept of force. European Journal of Science Education, 5(2), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528830050209

    Whitelock, O. (1991). Investigating a model of commonsense thinking about causes of motion with 7 to 16-year-old pupils. International Journal of Science Education, 13(3), 321-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130310

    van Vorst, H., & Aydoğmuş, H. (2021). One context fits all? – Analyzing students’ context choice and their reasons for choosing a context-based task in chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1908640

    Yarosh, S. & Guzdial. M. (2007). Narrating data structures: The role of context in CS2. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computing Education Research (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (ICER ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1145/1288580.1288592