- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Test of understanding of electric field, force, and flux: A reliable multiple-choice assessment tool

Eder Hernandez1, Esmeralda Campos2, Pablo Barniol1, and Genaro Zavala3,4,*

  • *Contact author: genaro.zavala@tec.mx
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010156 – Published 3 June, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/98gy-2m6g

Abstract

This study presents the development and validation of a novel multiple-choice test designed to assess university students’ conceptual understanding of electric field, force, and flux. The test of understanding of electric field, force, and flux was constructed based on the results of previous studies using a phenomenographic approach to classify common errors in these concepts. The final 10-item test, designed with targeted distractors, was administered to 116 students enrolled in an introductory electricity and magnetism course. Statistical analyses, including item difficulty and discrimination indices, confirmed the reliability and discriminatory power of the test. Students’ performance revealed significant misconceptions in applying the superposition principle, Gauss’s law, and electric force interactions. The results of this study provide valuable insights into students’ learning challenges and offer physics educators and researchers a useful tool for assessing conceptual understanding and guiding instructional improvements.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (38)

  1. J. L. Docktor and J. P. Mestre, Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020119 (2014).
  2. S. Törnkvist, K.-A. Pettersson, and G. Tranströmer, Confusion by representation: On student’s comprehension of the electric field concept, Am. J. Phys. 61, 335 (1993).
  3. C. Furió and J. Guisasola, Difficulties in learning the concept of electric field, Sci. Educ. 82, 511 (1998).
  4. D. P. Maloney, T. L. O’Kuma, C. J. Hieggelke, and A. Van Heuvelen, Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism, Am. J. Phys. 69, S12 (2001).
  5. L. Ding, R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and R. Beichner, Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010105 (2006).
  6. M. Saarelainen, A. Laaksonen, and P. E. Hirvonen, Students’ initial knowledge of electric and magnetic fields—more profound explanations and reasoning models for undesired conceptions, Eur. J. Phys. 28, 51 (2007).
  7. M. McColgan, R. Finn, D. Broder, and G. Hassel, Assessing students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020121 (2017).
  8. E. Campos, G. Zavala, K. Zuza, and J. Guisasola, Electric field lines: The implications of students’ interpretation on their understanding on the concept of electric field and the superposition principle, Am. J. Phys. 87, 660 (2019).
  9. E. Campos, E. Hernandez, P. Barniol, and G. Zavala, Phenomenographic analysis and comparison of students’ conceptual understanding of electric and magnetic fields and the principle of superposition, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020117 (2021).
  10. T. M. Scaife and A. F. Heckler, Interference between electric and magnetic concepts in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 010104 (2011).
  11. S. Shubha and B. N. Meera, Students’ perception of vector representation in the context of electric force and the role of simulation in developing an understanding, Int. J. Educ. Ped. Sci. 9, 2 (2015), https://www.aminer.cn/pub/56d83e3bdabfae2eee72eb06/students-perception-of-vector-representation-in-the-context-of-electric-force-and.
  12. E. Hernandez, E. Campos, P. Barniol, and G. Zavala, The effect of similar surface features on students’ understanding of the interaction of charges with electric and magnetic fields, in Proceedings of PER Conference 2019 (American Association of Physics Teachers, Provo, UT, 2019), 10.1119/perc.2019.pr.Hernandez.
  13. E. Hernandez, E. Campos, P. Barniol, and G. Zavala, Phenomenographic analysis of students’ conceptual understanding of electric and magnetic interactions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020101 (2022).
  14. J. Guisasola, J. Salinas, M. Almudí, and S. Velazco, Análisis de los procesos de aplicación de las Leyes de Gauss y Ampère por estudiantes universitarios de Espańa y Argentina, Rev. Bras. Ensino Fis. 25, 2 (2003).
  15. C. Singh, Student understanding of symmetry and Gauss’s law of electricity, Am. J. Phys. 74, 923 (2006).
  16. J. Guisasola, J. M. Almudí, J. Salinas, K. Zuza, and M. Ceberio, The Gauss and Ampere laws: Different laws but similar difficulties for student learning, Eur. J. Phys. 29, 1005 (2008).
  17. J. Li and C. Singh, Investigating and improving introductory physics students’ understanding of electric flux, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 045711 (2018).
  18. E. Hernandez, E. Campos, P. Barniol, and G. Zavala, Comparing students’ understanding of Gauss’s and Ampere’s laws with field sources in square-like symmetries, in Proceedings of PER Conference (Virtual Conference) (2021), 10.1119/perc.2021.pr.Hernandez.
  19. E. Campos, E. Hernandez, P. Barniol, and G. Zavala, Analysis and comparison of students’ conceptual understanding of symmetry arguments in Gauss’s and Ampere’s laws, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010103 (2023).
  20. E. Hernandez, E. Campos, P. Barniol, and G. Zavala, Students’ conceptual understanding of electric flux and magnetic circulation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 013102 (2023).
  21. J. D. Marx, Creation of a diagnostic exam for introductory, undergraduate electricity and magnetism, Dissertation Abstracts International (University Microfilms No. 9908686), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, 2008.
  22. A. Madsen, S. McKagan, and E. Sayre, Resource letter RBAI-1: Research-based assessment instruments in physics and astronomy, Am. J. Phys. 85, 245 (2017).
  23. J. Li and C. Singh, Developing and validating a conceptual survey to assess introductory physics students’ understanding of magnetism, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 25 (2016).
  24. F. Marton, Phenomenography—Describing conceptions of the world around us, Instr. Sci. 10, 177 (1981).
  25. F. Marton, Phenomenography—A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality, J. Thought 21, 28 (1986), https://www.jstor.org/stable/42589189.
  26. H. D. Young and R. A. Freedman, University Physics with Modern Physics, 13th ed. (Pearson, Mexico, 2013).
  27. L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Pearson Education, Buenos Aires, 2001).
  28. P. Engelhardt, An introduction to classical test theory as applied to conceptual multiple-choice tests, in Getting Started in PER, edited by C. Henderson and K. A. Harper (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2009), https://www.per-central.org/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=8807&DocID=1148.
  29. L. Crocker and J. Algina, Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory (Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning, Orlando, FL, 1986).
  30. R. Beichner, Testing student interpretation of kinematic graphs, Am. J. Phys. 62, 750 (1994).
  31. T. Kline, Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach to Design and Evaluation (SAGE Ed., Canada, 2005).
  32. J. Barbera, A psychometric analysis of the chemical concepts inventory, J. Chem. Educ. 90, 546 (2013).
  33. R. M. Alareifi, Analysis of MCQs in summative exam in English: Difficulty index, discrimination index and relationship between them, J. Gen. Educ. 20, 124 (2023).
  34. A. A. Rezigalla, A. M. E. S. A. Eleragi, A. B. Elhussein, J. Alfaifi, M. A. ALGhamdi, A. Y. Al Ameer, A. I. O. Yahia, O. A. Mohammed, and M. I. E. Adam, Item analysis: The impact of distractor efficiency on the difficulty index and discrimination power of multiple-choice items, BMC Med. Educ. 24, 445 (2024).
  35. W. Mahjabeen, S. Alam, U. Hassan, T. Zafar, R. Butt, S. Konain, and M. Rizvi, Difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency in multiple choice questions, Ann. PIMS 13, 310 (2017), https://www.apims.net/apims/article/view/9.
  36. P. Barniol and G. Zavala, Test of understanding of vectors (TUV): A reliable multiple-choice vector concept test, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010121 (2014).
  37. P. Barniol, E. Campos, and G. Zavala, La prueba conceptual de electricidad y magnetismo: Análisis de confiabilidad y estudio de las dificultades más frecuentes, Enseñanza Cienc. 36, 167 (2018).
  38. A. A. diSessa, Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognit. Instr. 10, 105 (1993).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010156– Published 3 June, 2025
  • Received 12 November 2024
  • Accepted 15 May 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation