Paper detail

Exploring one aspect of pedagogical content knowledge of teaching assistants using the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism

Instruction is unlikely to be effective if instructors do not know the common alternate conceptions of introductory physics students and explicitly take into account common student difficulties in their instructional design. Here, we discuss research involving the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism (CSEM) to evaluate one aspect of the pedagogical content knowledge of teaching assistants (TAs): knowledge of introductory students' alternate conceptions in electricity and magnetism as revealed by the CSEM. For each item on the CSEM, the TAs were asked to identify the most common incorrect answer choice selected by introductory physics students if they did not know the correct answer after traditional instruction. Then, we used introductory student CSEM post-test data to assess the extent to which TAs were able to identify the most common alternate conception of introductory students in each question on the CSEM. We find that the TAs were thoughtful when attempting to identify common student difficulties and they enjoyed learning about student difficulties this way. However, they struggled to identify many common difficulties of introductory students that persist after traditional instruction. We discuss specific alternate conceptions that persist after traditional instruction, the extent to which TAs were able to identify them, and results from think-aloud interviews with TAs which provided valuable information regarding why the TAs sometimes selected certain alternate conceptions as the most common but were instead very rare among introductory students. We also discuss how tasks such as the one used in this study can be used in professional development programs to engender productive discussions about the importance of being knowledgeable about student alternate conceptions in order to help students learn.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.