Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:31–44

DOI 10.1007/s11165-007-9038-9

Some Student Conceptions of Electromagnetic Induction

Wai Meng Thong & Richard Gunstone

Published online: 7 February 2007

# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract Introductory electromagnetism is a central part of undergraduate physics.

Although there has been some research into student conceptions of electromagnetism,
studies have been sparse and separated. This study sought to explore second year physics
students’ conceptions of electromagnetism, to investigate to what extent the results from the
present study are similar to these results from other studies, and to uncover any new forms
of alternative conceptions. Data for this study came from 15 in-depth interviews. Three
previously unreported alternative conceptions were identified in the study: 1) induced
current varies proportionately with current in solenoid; 2) there must be contact between
magnetic flux and the external coil in order for any emf to be induced in the coil; 3)
coulombic or electrostatic potential difference is present in an induced electric field. These
alternative conceptions were manifested in these students’ explanations of electromagnetic
phenomena presented to them during the interviews.

Key words student learning of electromagnetism . university physics . electromagnetic

induction . lenz’s law . faraday’s law

Introduction

Electrostatic and magnetic phenomena have been experienced by many students from a
young age. Iron filing patterns, repulsion of pith balls are common classroom
demonstrations, and magnets are common playthings. As students progress through
their science curriculum over the years, many form a working mental model (Greca &
Moreira, 1997) of electrostatic and magnetic interactions based on observations in
classroom demonstrations or experimental explorations or everyday play. As these students
enter university and encounter more abstract and mathematically structured electromagnetic
concepts, some have managed to transform their mental models into more sophisticated
schemata (Ferguson-Hessler & de Jong, 1987). However, many students retain some more
primitive conceptions which are manifested in the form of naïve explanations of
electromagnetic phenomena (Törnkvist, Pettersson, & Tranströmer, 1993). Such retention

W. M. Thong (*) : R. Gunstone

Education, Monash University, Clayton Campus, Wellington Road, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia
e-mail: WaiMeng.Thong@education.monash.edu.au
32 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:31–44

of more primitive conceptions is not surprising, given the highly abstract nature of the
concepts of electromagnetism. Even the concepts and relationships of the apparently much
more obvious area of direct current electricity are often poorly understood by even textbook
authors (e.g., Gunstone, McKittrick, & Mulhall, 2005). Given the highly abstract nature of
electromagnetism concepts, this introduction considers both relevant previous research on
student understanding of the concepts and some aspects of the nature of the concepts
themselves.
Some studies of the difficulties faced by students learning the concepts of
electromagnetism suggest that these difficulties mimic those faced by early scientists
when they were forming a model to explain electromagnetic phenomena (Furió &
Guisasola, 1998; Pocovi & Finley, 2002). Others claim that difficulties are due to the
mismatch of knowledge transferred from other topics in physics to electromagnetism
(Galili, 1995; Rainson, Tranströmer, & Viennot, 1994). There have also been studies aimed
at a more generalized outlook on student comprehension of electromagnetism. These
studies include the consideration of the knowledge structure (Bagno & Eylon, 1997) and
the quality of this knowledge structure (Ferguson-Hessler & de Jong, 1987) that students
possessed. Closely related to these studies was research done on the need to consider how
students relate to qualitative and quantitative problem solving in dealing with problem
situations of an electromagnetic nature (McMillan & Swadener, 1991).
Bagno and Eylon (1997) reckoned that a good knowledge structure must include
qualitative reasoning, for “another desired feature of the knowledge structure in physics is
the qualitative representation of relationships in addition to their mathematical representa-
tions” (p. 726). Their study, therefore, aimed to investigate “whether in the course of
conventional instruction of electromagnetism students form an adequate representation of
knowledge” (Bagno & Eylon, 1997, p. 726). Results showed that most students regarded
Ohm’s Law as the most important concept of electromagnetism. Also, most of the students’
stated that a magnetic field is produced by a changing electric field but less than 5% stated
the reverse relationship. In summarising their results, the researchers highlighted four
important aspects of students’ knowledge structure. Firstly, with regards to Lenz’s law,
students substituted ‘being in opposite direction’ for ‘opposes the changes.’ Secondly, an
electric field was seen to not be affected by any addition of charges. Thirdly, students
showed a general lack of understanding in the relationship between electric field and
electric potential. Lastly, students resorted to the use of the right-hand-rule without a proper
qualitative understanding of the underlying concepts. Students who used the rule had a
presumption that the direction of motion of the charged particle was always perpendicular
to the applied magnetic field (and hence, 60% of the students had the belief that the path of
a charged particle in a magnetic field was always circular) (Bagno & Eylon, 1997). In
conclusion, the researchers suggested there were five areas of deficiency in students’
knowledge structures:
1. Often, [a student’s knowledge structure] does not include central relationships (e.g.
Maxwell’s equations) in any form, neither mathematical nor qualitative.
2. There is an over-emphasis on subsidiary information .... many students consider Ohm’s
law to be of central importance and completely disregard electromagnetic induction.
3. They have difficulty retrieving even the partial information that they store.
4. Most students seem to represent the relationships only in mathematical form and do not
have access to more qualitative representations.
5. Students hold many inaccurate ideas in electromagnetism and erroneously interpret the
central relationships (Bagno & Eylon, 1997, pp. 734–735).
Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:31–44 33

Materials and Methods

This paper reports an exploration of the conceptions of university physics students of some
aspects of electromagnetism. The sample consisted of 15 second-year undergraduate
students who studied physics as a main subject. These students had taken an introductory
course in electromagnetism in their first year of study and were, at the time of the study,
doing laboratory investigations of electromagnetic phenomena. This sample was chosen
because of their expected familiarity with the more abstract nature of electromagnetism
(having gone through a rather mathematically rigorous introductory course on the subject)
and their increased ability to explain electromagnetic phenomena from a qualitative
perspective. The students were interviewed individually at their university, with each
session averaging 30 min.
During the interview, students were asked a series of questions relating to electromag-
netic phenomena. The focus of this paper is on the answers given for four questions
pertaining electromagnetic induction.
These four questions relate to a basic setup of a rectangular conducting coil enclosing a
very long solenoid, Fig. 1, adapted from a similar diagram by Lanzara and Zangara (1995).
The coil is placed near to the middle of the long solenoid with its plane perpendicular to the
solenoid. The magnetic field is confined only within the solenoid. An increasing current is
flowing around the solenoid windings. In order to help the students visualise the setup,
Fig. 1 was shown to the students at the beginning of each interview. In Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 5,
this basic setup was illustrated with the rectangular coil in the plane of the paper and a
shaded circle in the middle of the coil as the solenoid.
The four questions asked of students were adapted from Peters (1984). He reckoned that
“students be given a variety of situations to confront in order to infer general properties of a
circuit” (p. 208). By introducing an induced emf as another source in a DC circuit, he
wanted to investigate how students employ their knowledge of DC circuits to make
predictions about the novel situations. After reviewing his study, we determined that there
were some areas that needed further investigation.
1. No mention was made of student conceptions about the origin of this induced emf.
2. No interviews were conducted to probe student reasoning.

Fig. 1 Basic set-up for interview

questions
34 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:31–44

Fig. 2 Two lamps in series

I
L1 L2

3. Students may well have misconceptions regarding induced emf and Coulombic
potential difference at the fundamental level (Jones, 2003; Lanzara & Zangara, 1995).
Hence, we adapted three problem situations from the study by Peters (1984) study.
These questions involved the induced emf as the only source in a coil containing lamps as
circuit components. Question 4 was our own variation of these adaptations. The four
questions were arranged in progressive difficulty, as seen in terms of an understanding of
the physics. Students were asked to predict which lamps in a circuit connected to the coil
would be lit, as well as their relative brightness, in all the four situations.
The four questions given to students in the interviews are now described. As well as
giving a description of each of the situations on which the questions are based, we also
outline the underlying physics and give the answers we accepted as correct.
Figure 2 shows a wire forming a closed loop round a long solenoid (shaded in grey). A
current, I, is flowing anticlockwise round the solenoid windings. This current, I, generates a
magnetic field within the solenoid. As this current is increasing in magnitude with time the
magnetic field within the solenoid is also increasing with time. As this closed loop is
located at the mid-section of the long solenoid, a magnetic field would be present only in
the space inside the solenoid (shaded circle).
Faraday’s Law can be stated mathematically as
I
dB
" ¼ E
dl ¼ 
dt

This indicates that an emf, ɛ, is induced around any closed loop around a changing
magnetic field, B, with time. Hence, an induced emf would be present in the wire in Fig. 2.
More precisely, a changing magnetic field induces an electric field, E, everywhere in
the wire. The work done per unit charge in moving the charges around this wire is given by
the closed loop integral of E×dl where dl is the infinitesimal length element in the along the
loop (wire).

Fig. 3 Three lamps in series

L2
I
L1

L3
Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:31–44 35

Fig. 4 Two lamps with a short

wire

I
L4 L5

This induced emf would drive a current around the wire causing the two lamps in series
on the wire to light up.
The situation depicted in Fig. 3 has three lamps in series instead of two as depicted in
Fig. 2. The magnitude of the induced emf is the same as in Fig. 2. However, this same emf
has to drive a current through a higher resistance. Hence, the magnitude of the induced
current is reduced and the lamps light up less brightly as compared to the situation in Fig. 2.
In Fig. 4, a short wire appears between the solenoid and the lamp on the right. This
changes the loop configuration. The short circuit means that there are two separate loops
joined at a point (like a figure “8”). Only one of these loops now encircles the solenoid.
According to Faraday’s Law, an emf can only be induced in the loop containing the
changing magnetic field. Hence, an induced current will be present in the loop containing
the lamp L4. There will not be any emf induced in the other loop containing the lamp L5,
and therefore no current. This results in L4 being lit and L5 not lit.
The situation depicted in Fig. 5 is similar to that depicted in Fig. 4 except for a lamp L6
appearing on the short wire. By Faraday’s Law, an emf is induced in the loop containing
lamps L4 and L6 and the loop containing lamps L4 and L5 since both loops encircle the
changing magnetic field. This will cause lamps L5 and L6 to be equally bright but both
dimmer than lamp L4.

Results and Discussion

The results for Question 1 are presented in Table 1.

The correct answer to this question is that both lamps would be lit and be equally bright.
The majority of the students interviewed claimed that both lamps were lit. We now consider
some of the reasons given in support of this answer.

Fig. 5 Two lamps in parallel and

in series with third lamp

I
L4 L6 L5
36 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:31–44

Table 1 Summary of results for

Question 1 Results Number of students

Both lamps lit 10

Only lamp L1 is lit 1
Both lamps not lit 4

One of the reasons was that the two lamps were lit equally brightly due to an induced
current flowing through the coil and equally through both lamps. As an example of this line
of reasoning, consider student S1.
S1 : so the current is flowing around there ...
Interviewer : what would you observe when an increasing current flows through the
solenoid windings?
S1 : it doesn’t feel right that one lamp and not the other should be lit ...because it is
connected in series ... because if it was current induced ... it should flow through the
entire coil ...
Interviewer : so do you think they’re both lit?
S1 : I think so ... I can’t think of a reason why one would be lit and one wouldn’t be
lit.
Interviewer : both being lit at the same brightness?
S1 : yes because the induced currents through the loops should be the same.
Besides being equally bright, some students believed that these lamps would also
increase in brightness. This comment was made by one student, S3.
S3 : there is a change in the field ... which should induce a current in the square coil
around the solenoid which would light both the lamps equal ... as it’s increasing, I
would expect the lamps ... as the magnitude of the current increases ... I would expect
the lamps to get gradually brighter ...
Interviewer : brightness is increasing with current?
S3 : yes
Two students, S4 and S9, reckoned that only L1 is lit since the current indicated on the
solenoid was closer to L1. These students reasoned that the magnitude of the induced
current depended on the separation between the lamp and the solenoid.
Interviewer : which one is brighter than the other one? Or both are equal [in
brightness]?
S4 : same ... equal ...
Interviewer : and the reason for that?
S4 : because they are not different ... because equal distances.
Interviewer : does it matter when the solenoid is closer to L1 ... will L1 be brighter?
S4 : yeah ... L1 ... brighter ... yeah ... distance matters.
Interviewer : if the solenoid is closer to L2, L2 will be brighter?
S4 : yeah ...
Interviewer : any reason for this?
S4 : because of the magnetic field ... because as you get further away, the magnetic
field gets lower, so when you bring it closer ... higher the magnetic field more current ...
Interviewer : what would you predict for the brightness of lamps L1 and L2?
S9 : I would say L1.
Interviewer : why do you choose L1?
Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:31–44 37

S9 : I thinking that somehow, this current is going to cause a current to flow around
here ... there’s going to be some sort of distance dependence there ...
Interviewer : does it matter when the solenoid is closer to L1 ... will L1 be brighter?
S9 : yeah ... L1 ... brighter ... yeah ... distance matters.
The idea of dependence of the induced current’s magnitude on distance was not
generally held by most students. S11, offered a reason against this conception.
Interviewer : so does it matter now if I shift the solenoid to the left or to the right?
Would it affect the current in the coil?
S11 : it shouldn’t ... cos you can’t have an uneven current flow.
Although S11 felt that the relative distance of the solenoid from each lamp did not affect
the brightness of the lamps, the amount of contact of the magnetic field with the coil
containing the lamps mattered.
Interviewer : and one more thing is that the field is concentrated inside the solenoid.
There’s no field outside ... so what would you predict for the lamps ... will they be
both lit or one of them is lit?
S11 : I would have thought that neither of them would be lit because like you said ...
the field outside the solenoid drops away so quickly that it’s basically zero.
Interviewer : zero ... no field at all.
S11 : yeap ... and there’s no ... even though the field in here might be changing ... due
to increase in current ... it won’t be changing out here so there still be an induced flux.
Interviewer : no induced flux?
S11 : well not flux ... so no induced emf.
The view held by S11 was shared by three other students who gave the conclusion that
no lamps would be lit since there was no flux in direct contact with the external coil.
The results for Question 2 are presented in Table 2.
The correct answer for this question would be all lamps are equally bright and they are
of a lesser brightness than the lamps in the previous case, Question 1. All but one of the
students interviewed predicted the correct outcome. The correct line of reasoning was to
reckon that the total induced emf drove the three lamps in series resulting in their equal
brightness (Peters, 1984). Amongst the majority of the students who concluded that all the
lamps were lit, S15 showed this understanding.
Interviewer : what do you predict for the brightness of the lamps?
S15 : I would guess that they’d all have the same brightness but it would be lower
than the ones in the previous case.
Interviewer : so all lit but less bright?
S15 : yeah ...

Table 2 Summary of results for

Question 2 Results Number
of
students

All the lamps are lit Lesser brightness 14

than previous case
Lamp L1 is the brightest Lamps Lesser brightness 1
L2 & L3 are equally bright than previous case
38 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:31–44

Interviewer : and the reason for that is?

S15 : I think Lenz’s Law talks about an induced emf as ... so I think emf is the same,
of the whole circuit ...
Interviewer : so the emf is the same as the previous case ... the emf gets divided more
so that accounts for the decrease in brightness?
S15 : yeah ...
The perception of how the emf was distributed along the external coil could cause a
wrong conclusion to be made. This could be seen in the response of S13.
S13 : think in this case, L1 would be brighter ...
Interviewer : L1 would be brighter ...
S13 : and then L2 and L3 would be the same brightness ...
Interviewer : and the reason for that?
S13 : I was just sort of imagining the change in flux was sort of, it has an emf ...
Interviewer : so an induced current would be flowing in the coil?
S13 : yeah ...
Interviewer : so does it mean the current coming through L2 and L3 would be
reduced?
S13 : I don’t think the current will be reduced ... I just think the voltage.
This prediction given by S13 has also been observed in many students to which this
question was posed (Peters, 1984). According to Peters (1984), many students deemed that
the induced emf was divided into two equal portions and acted on the left hand side and
right hand side of the rectangular coil, respectively. Since the left hand side has only one
lamp, L1, it has to be the brightest. Lamps L2 and L3, sharing the same emf, would then be
equally bright but dimmer than lamp L1. “The correct answer, that all bulbs are equally
bright, requires an understanding that the total emf in the circuit drives three bulbs in series,
however they are geometrically placed around the solenoid” (Peters, 1984; p. 209).
The results for Question 3 are presented in Table 3.
The configuration of the external coil now is the same as for Question 1 except for a
wire running between the solenoid and the lamp on the right. The correct answer for this
question would be lamp L4 lit and lamp L5 not lit. There were three categories of answers
with an almost even distribution of students for the first and second category, a distribution
quite different from that of the previous two questions where the distribution was more
skewed towards the correct response.
We shall start by looking at the response from S15 under the first category, L4 was on
and L5 was off.
S15 : well, I would imagine L4 would be lit and L5 wouldn’t.
Interviewer : so L4 will be lit and L5 wouldn’t ... why is that so?
S15 : well, the magnetic flux in this loop is increasing so that should be a current
around there ... but there’s no flux increasing in this loop so there wouldn’t be a
current doing through here

Table 3 Summary of results for

Question 3 Results Number of students

Lamp L4 is ON and Lamp L5 is OFF 6

Lamp L4 is brighter than Lamp L5 8
Lamp L4 and Lamp L5 are equally bright 1
Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:31–44 39

Interviewer : so a loop has to encircle an increase or decrease in emf to have an

induced current ...
S15 : yeah ...
We now examine the responses of students in the second category, L4 was brighter
than L5. Although some students recognized the presence of the short wire, they could
not ignore the effects of the magnetic flux on the coil. Consider the response from one
such student, S10.
Interviewer : but in this case would L4 and L5 light at all ... given what we have been
talking about?
S10 : with no field outside the solenoid?
Interviewer : no field outside the solenoid.
S10 : no won’t light ...
Interviewer : but if there’s a field outside?
S10 : if there is a field outside ... I’d expect L4 to light ...
Interviewer : and L5 not to light?
S10 : L5 slightly ...
Interviewer : so which loop will you be thinking of when you talk about the induced
emf?
S10 : well, if it was an electric circuit and you have one current source ... you’d
expect the short circuit to prevent L5 from lighting ... that said ... an induced emf, it’s
a bit difficult to visualise exactly where the source is ... maybe the source is
everywhere where there is a resistance, in which case both lights will light ...
Interviewer : it’s [L5] further away from the solenoid so it’s less bright than L4 but
both will be lit?
S10 : yes.
S10’s basic premise was that there must be a magnetic field in contact with the coil.
Having satisfied this condition, S10 then proceeded to consider how the emf could be
induced. S10 was partially right in saying that “the source is everywhere where there is a
resistance.” The correct understanding should be that the source was in the closed loop
enclosing the solenoid since by Faraday’s Law – an emf is induced in a conducting loop
encircling a changing magnetic field. Since the short circuit formed a loop enclosing no
changing magnetic field, no emf (source) would be induced in that loop. From the S10’s
response, we can again see the manifestation of the concept of distance dependence – the
magnitude of the induced emf depends on the distance of the loop from the solenoid has
been elaborated upon in the discussion of the previous question.
We now come to the last category, that is, the lamps L4 and L5 were of equal brightness.
There was only one student, S5, who made such a prediction.
S5 : I would say that the lamps would be the same brightness.
Interviewer : and the reason for that?
S5 : well, once again if you look at the ideal situations, the currents through each
of them will be the same ... but the resistances will be the same ... it’s the same
potential drop ...
Interviewer : does it matter at all this wire that I have put in?
S5 : I guess it would ... but if you assume that resistances ... I guess ... no ... it
wouldn’t ...
Interviewer : do you have to mentally insert the battery somewhere? On this diagram?
S5 : no ...
40 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:31–44

Interviewer : you don’t have to work with the battery ... in your mental picture?
S5 : I don’t have to put a battery ...
The only time that resistances have the same potential drops was when they were in
parallel. In other words, S5 might have regarded the lamps L4 and L5 to be in parallel. And
in order to make his prediction work, he had to disregard the presence of the short wire. As
we can see, S5’s attempt was focused on making sense of the configuration, obscuring the
other important factors such as the position of the solenoid and the presence of the short wire.
The results for Question 4 are presented in Table 4.
The correct answer for this question is Lamp L4 would be brightest, Lamps L5 and L6
are equally bright but both are dimmer than Lamp L4. A substantial majority of the students
gave this correct answer. We shall now look at the reasoning of one student, S1, who
predicted the first answer, L4 brightest with L5 and L6 equally bright.
S1 : again to continue the DC circuit ... DC analysis ... Then we got parallel
Interviewer : L5 and L6 parallel?
S1 : yea, they are in parallel ...
Interviewer : so will all be lit?
S1 : yes all of them should be lit because as I mentioned in the previous case there is
no easier path for current to travel in here. Given current flows through the loop, there
is no reason why all them should not be lit ...
Interviewer : do you think they will be the same brightness?
S1 : given that they are in parallel [L5 & L6], no ...
Interviewer : in saying that L5 and L6 are in parallel, does it mean that in your
analogy of a DC circuit you have placed a battery on the loop containing L4?
S1 : on the loop [loop encircling solenoid] ... yes
Interviewer : do you have a reason ... for the choice of where to put the battery?
S1 : because the induced current will flow in the loop containing the solenoid ...
Interviewer : so now, which lamps do you think are brighter?
S1 : L4 should be brighter and then L5 & L6 ... should be equal ...
Interviewer : L5 and L6 the same brightness?
S1 : yes.
Now we shall look at the second category, that is, the prediction that all the lamps were
equally bright. There were two, S5 and S14, who offered this prediction.
S5 : I would say they’re all the same brightness as well ...
Interviewer : same brightness?
S5 : parallel ...
Interviewer : which are parallel?
S5 : all three ...
Interviewer : all three in parallel?

Table 4 Summary of results for Question 4

Results Number of students

Lamp L4 brightest, Lamps L5 & L6 equally bright but dimmer than Lamp L4 12
All the lamps are equally bright 2
Lamp L4 brightest followed by Lamp L6 and lastly by Lamp L5 1
Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:31–44 41

S5 : well if you imagine you’ve got a charge with a certain amount of energy moving
through ... different amount of current will pass through each section of the wire ...
since they’re identical lamps, the current will be split equally among them ... so you’ll
get a third through each section ...
Interviewer : does it matter where the solenoid is?
S5 : I think it will be the same ...
Interviewer : have you consider the flux through the loop containing L4 and L6?
S5 : I think even if the flux was different then the result in some of the current would
work itself out so that the voltage is across each of the ones ...
Interviewer : how does it work itself out?
S5 : I’m not too sure ... that’s just the way I think ...
Interviewer : so L4, L5 and L6 are all in parallel ... they would be of equal brightness
... all will be lit?
S5 : yeap ...
S14 : they’re all equal ...
Interviewer : your reason for the conclusion?
S14 : just going back to Kirchoff’s voltage law ...
Interviewer : what does Kirchoff’s voltage law say?
S14 : I know if you have two terminals in a circuit, then voltage ... and everything is
connected in parallel ... the voltage drop across the two circuit elements has to be the
same
Interviewer : so which ones are in parallel?
S14 : all three ...
One idea that was common between these two students was that they viewed all these
lamps to be in parallel, and to have the same potential difference across them.
There was only one student, S10, who offered the prediction that the brightness of the
lamps would be in the decreasing order of L4, L6 and L5.
S10 : I’d expect L4 to the brightest ... L6 the second brightest ... L5 the third brightest
... well since it’s an induced emf, there might be some induced in L5 ...Interviewer :
and your battery would be somewhere on the loop containing L4 and L6?
S10 : yes ... there would be a possible battery there ... but because of the ... if the field
stretched to L5, then we’ve also got the same reasoning that the battery ...
Interviewer : could be on the loop containing L5 and L6?
S10 : yeah ... there could be one battery here and one battery here ...
Interviewer : so two batteries? Are they of the same emf ... the batteries?
S10 : well, just because of the distance, I’d expect this one to be very small ...
Interviewer : so the emf on loop L5 and L6 would be smaller than the emf on the loop
L4 and L6?
S10 : yeah ...
As we can see, working with the idea that flux linkage meant contact of the flux with the
external coil could lead to quite interesting predictions – each loop possessing a different emf.

Discussion

From the analyses, we can see that students possessed a number of alternative conceptions
about electromagnetic interactions.
42 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:31–44

Alternative Conception 1: Induced Current Varies Proportionately with Current in Solenoid

Students having this conception believed that the magnitude of the induced current was
directly proportional to the magnitude of the current in the coil of the solenoid. Bagno and
Eylon (1997) observed that students in their study had “a common confusion ...that in
magnetic induction, the induced field is opposite in direction to the field which induces it”
(p. 733), rather than opposite in direction to the change in the field inducing it. This
confusion relating to the ‘change in the field,’ or phrased more correctly, the ‘change in the
field with time’ has some subtle but significant impact on student conceptions of
electromagnetic induction.
In our study, we observed that one student had a conception that the induced current was
directly proportional to the change in current in the solenoid. That is, an increase in current
in the solenoid was accompanied by an increase in the induced current. Of course, the
correct conception would be an increase in the rate of change of current in the solenoid
would result in an increase in induced current. A consequence of this wrong conception
might also have led two other students to conclude that the distance between the solenoid
and the lamp affected the brightness of that lamp. These students reckoned that the nearer
the solenoid meant that more of the field passed through that part of the coil connecting the
lamp. These observations were quite unique to our study and to our knowledge have not
been observed in other studies.

Alternative Conception 2: There Must Always be Contact Between Magnetic Flux

and External Coil in Order for Any Emf to be Induced in the Coil

There were four students in our study who subscribed to this belief, with one of them
expressing explicitly that magnetic field lines were real entities. This alternative conception
that magnetic field lines were real has been observed in a study by Guisasola, Almudí and
Zubimendi (2004) involving 235 Argentinean high school and undergraduate engineering
students. These students held the belief that “a real entity is attributed to field lines ...
magnetic interaction occurs as a consequence of the ‘attraction’ and ‘repulsion’ of the field
lines” (p. 14). Their study showed that 15%, that is, about 35 students, have this alternative
conception. In our study, a view of field lines having a physical reality was likely expressed
as a need for ‘real contact’ of the field lines with the external coil. This observation, like the
previous conception, was also unique to our study.

Alternative Conception 3: Coulombic or Electrostatic Potential Difference is the Same

as an Induced Emf

Students having this conception believed that there is no difference between potential
difference in an electrostatic field and the emf in an induced electric field. Although there
was no specific mention of an induced electric field in all the students’ responses, there
were many instances where ‘potential difference’ or ‘voltage drop’ and Kirchoff’s voltage
law were mentioned in students’ reasoning. The present study showed that 10 out of the 15
students interviewed employed the terms ‘potential difference’ or ‘voltage drop’ in their
explanations for the four interview questions. Another two students mentioned Ohm’s Law,
V = IR, but did not explicitly use the terms ‘potential difference’ or ‘voltage drop.’ The rest
of the students (n=3) used either ‘induced current’ or ‘induced emf’ consistently
throughout their explanations for the four interview questions. If the two students who
used Ohm’s Law have the same kind of conception as the first 10 students, then the overall
Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:31–44 43

proportion who appear to hold alternative conception 3 stands at 80%. This confusion
between electrostatic potential difference and induced emf has been discussed at length by
Lanzara and Zangara (1995). A similar explanation of this difference was provided by
Halliday, Resnick, and Walker (2001). An adaptation of this explanation given by Halliday
et al. is provided below.
The definition of the potential difference between two points a and b is
Za
Va  Vb ¼  E
dl
b

[Va & Vb: Potential at a and b, respectively; E: Electric Field; dl: length element along
the path of integration from a to b]
Now in a closed loop, a and b become the same point and the two potentials become
identical. Hence, the integral (written as a closed loop integral) becomes zero
I
E
dl ¼ 0

However, according to Faraday’s Law

I
d6B
E
dl ¼ 
dt

That is, the closed loop integral of the electric field is proportional to the rate of change
of the enclosed magnetic field, ΦB . We can see that this integral is non-zero. A
contradiction hence arises if we apply the concept of potential difference to electric fields
produced by electromagnetic induction. To resolve this contradiction, one must recognize
that electric potential difference associated with Coulombic or Electrostatic Fields has no
meaning in induced electric fields.

Educational Implications

The most fundamental of these implications is, as is common to many topics in physics, the
need to help students come to an understanding of both the nature of the construct “field”
and the purpose physicists have in creating this construct. The conceptualising of fields as
physical things and field lines as real entities not only are inadequate conceptions in
themselves, but also make an adequate understanding of electromagnetic concepts at least
very unlikely.
In our study, most of the students could not appreciate or were unaware of the difference
between Coulombic electric field and an induced electric field. We propose that it may be
expedient to include a discussion of this difference as part of the introductory course in
electromagnetism, and to reinforce this difference by including consideration of it at points
in the learning about induced fields. It has been observed in this study that many students
relied heavily in their explanations on a form of DC circuit analogy – with references
variously to battery, parallel/series arrangement, Kirchoff’s Law and Ohm’s Law. However,
this analogy is inadequate since the potential difference analogue has no equivalence in a
situation involving induced emf. An implication of this is that uncritical use of analogy can
44 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:31–44

be detrimental to facilitating a correct construct of a physical phenomenon. Hence, it would

be instructive to discuss attributes and inadequacies of the DC circuit analog and the target
concepts carefully with students to both further promote a general awareness of the
limitations in using analogical transfers and to specifically address some of the more
complex aspects of the concepts involved in electromagnetic induction.

References

Bagno, E., & Eylon, B. (1997). From problem solving to a knowledge structure: An example from the
domain of electromagnetism. American Journal of Physics, 65(8), 726–736.
Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., & de Jong T. (1987). On the quality of knowledge in the field of electricity and
magnetism. American Journal of Physics, 55(6), 492–497.
Furió, C., & Guisasola, J. (1998). Difficulties in learning the concept of electric field. Science Education, 82,
511–526.
Galili, I. (1995). Mechanics background influences students’ conceptions in electromagnetism. International
Journal of Science Education, 17(3), 371–387.
Galili, I., & Kaplan, D. (1997). Changing approach to teaching electromagnetism in a conceptually oriented
introductory physics course. American Journal of Physics, 65(7), 657–667.
Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (1997). The kinds of mental representations – models, propositions and
images – used by college physics students regarding the concept of field. International Journal of
Science Education, 19(6), 711–724.
Guisasola, J., Almudí, J. M., & Zubimendi, J. L. (2004). Difficulties in learning the introductory magnetic
field theory in the first years of university. Science Education, 88, 443–464.
Gunstone, R., McKittrick, B., & Mulhall, P. (2005). Textbooks and their authors: Another perspective on the
difficulties of teaching and learning electricity. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. de Jong, & H. Eijkelhof
(Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 341–366). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer.
Halliday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (2001). Fundamentals of physics. New York: Wiley.
Jones, C. (2003). Understanding and using the minus sign in Faraday’s Law. Physics Education, 38(6), 526–
530.
Lanzara, E., & Zangara, R. (1995). Potential difference measurements in the presence of a varying magnetic
field. Physics Education, 30, 85–89.
McMillan, C., & Swadener, M. (1991). Novice use of qualitative versus quantitative problem solving in
electrostatics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 661–670.
Peters, P. C. (1984). The role of induced emf’s in simple circuits. American Journal of Physics, 52(3), 208–
211.
Pocovi, M. C., & Finley, F. (2002). Lines of force: Faraday’s and students’ views. Science and Education, 11,
459–474.
Rainson, S., Tranströmer, G., & Viennot, L. (1994). Students’ understanding of superposition of electric
fields. American Journal of Physics, 62(11), 1026–1032.
Törnkvist, S., Pettersson, K. A., & Tranströmer, G. (1993). Confusion by representation: On students
Comprehension of the electric field concept. American Journal of Physics, 61(4), 335–338.