Conceptualization of electromagnetic induction at various educational levels: a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A vast amount of scientific literature in physics education documents a general widespread difficulty in dealing with electromagnetic induction (EMI) at various levels of instruction. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of research that compares difficulties with EMI at different educational levels. Here, we discuss a case study of Italian high school students', graduate students', and teachers' conceptualization of some aspects of EMI as a function of the sample instruction level. We analyzed the answers to a multiple choice written questionnaire, adapted from the literature and given to a total of 49 participants. Some difficulties that emerged during the exams of university students while discussing their final project concerning a didactical path about EMI for secondary school are also analyzed. We found that some deep misunderstandings are common at all levels of education and probably come from the very poor link, generally presented in teaching EMI, between Faraday's flux law and the Lorentz force.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".