Arxiv:1502.02830V2 [Physics.Ed-Ph] 2 Sep 2015 Ohqatte R Endlcly Hyol Describe Only They Locally: Deﬁned ﬁeld

Home , Nabla symbol, Vector operator

arXiv:1502.02830v2 [physics.ed-ph] 2 Sep 2015 ohqatte r endlcly hyol describe only they locally: defined field. the are in point quantities any Both at rotation infinitesimal the scribes oreo iko h eda ie on.Tecr of curl The point. given a a of at ( magnitude field field the vector the a of measures sink that or quantity source scalar a is yial xrse sn h nabla are the These includes using curl. that expressed and calculus typically divergence vector are operators of laws differential four language the the the form, differential in In written form. integral in or us- stu- when equations. our mathematics Maxwell’s problems and ing physical physics some with the charted encounter ad- has of dents this study description This apply the to reality. in need mathematics will vanced electro- they complex more phenomena, describe magnetic To calculus. have in- on in- during struction and an techniques mathematical course, in necessary the link magnetism concepts learned and the physical have electricity explore the students troductory of to since knowledge ‘laboratory’ physics acquired and ideal mathematics an between is course ics de- of therefore understanding is profound It a equations. have these students curricula. both that many relativity, sirable special in start- of the and theory are historically Einstein’s and for physics) (which point theory particle ing gauge in a used Maxwell’s of commonly concerning Moreover, example is first problems the optics. solve are wave equations to and in circuits used occurring electric be those including can phenomena electromagnetic electrodynam- They classical of equa- ics. foundations these the law, provide force mag- Lorentz tions and the electricity with of Together study netism. the in equations Maxwell’s h e prtr h iegneo etrfil ( field vector a of divergence The operator. del the awl’ qain a efruae ndifferential in formulated be can equations Maxwell’s electrodynam- an researchers, education physics For of importance the overestimate to difficult is It 2 etefrteAvneeto cec n ahmtc Teach Mathematics and Science of Advancement the for Centre ASnmes 14.k 14.b 01.40.Di 01.40.gb, 01.40.Fk, numbers: PACS unders fully fo to electrodynamics. students have in our We equations for sufficient situations. not grap physical is interpreting instruction to with calculus struggle vector but applying contexts. calculations, physical and Leuv doing in mathematical KU in at calculus field at vector vector students a of year of curl second use difficulties electr the the advanced master investigated students in that discussed necessary phenomena electrodynamic the nesadn awl’ qain ndffrnilfr so is form differential in equations Maxwell’s Understanding ∇ .INTRODUCTION I. tdns icliswt etrcluu nelectrodynam in calculus vector with difficulties Students’ × A eut navco edta de- that field vector a in results ) arn Bollen, Laurens ULue,Clsinnan20,30 evn Belgium. Leuven, 3001 200c, Celestijnenlaan Leuven, KU ulnCt nvriy lsei,Dbi ,Ireland. 9, Dublin Glasnevin, University, City Dublin 1 eateto hsc n srnm LESEC, & Astronomy and Physics of Department ∇ yblt denote to symbol 1, ∗ alvnKampen, van Paul Dtd etme ,2015) 3, September (Dated: ∇ · A ) nvriylvlt aecnen nrdcoycourses introductory concerns date to level university tion mlctosfrtahn r umrzdi Section possible in summarized and are findings teaching are important for that most implications topics The four above. the listed concerning difficulties and skills our to leads This Section in two. described the are which of goals, combination research the calcu- and vector electromagnetism, lus on mathematics research between physics: link and the on work including erature, h dctoa otx n ehdlg r described are Section methodology in and context educational The fsil htne ob curdb h students: the by acquired be to kinds need four that distinguish skills we of questions, research our mulate n nldsterkoldeadsil ocrigvector concerning skills calculus. and knowledge their form includes differential students’ and in on equations focuses Maxwell’s contexts. paper of understanding this two specific in the in described research majors, limitations The have physics and both For they advantages since certain space. important equally of are region formulations a electromagnetic in equa- the describe Maxwell’s field which from form, This integral distinction in point. important tions single most a at the field is vector a of characteristics the h aoiyo hsc dcto eerh(E)at (PER) research education physics of majority The nSection In 4. 3. 2. 1. 2, V n n erig&Sho fPyia Sciences, Physical of School & Learning and ing adtemaigadpwro Maxwell’s of power and meaning the tand ocpuludrtnigo awl’ equations form. differential Maxwell’s in of understanding conceptual operators vector involve that calculations field doing the of representation context graphical the in a operators of these of interpretation the curl and divergence dient, understanding structural † ia ersnain fvco ed and fields vector of representations hical hsscincnan icsino u students’ our of discussion a contains section This . ehv on htte r ut skilled quite are they that found have We n togidctosta traditional that indications strong und n ik eCock De Mieke and necutrwt h iegneand divergence the with encounter en mgeimcuss ti therefore is It courses. omagnetism hsclstain.I hslgtwe light this In situations. physical IV ra motnewe studying when importance great f I EAE LITERATURE RELATED II. olwdb h eut forsuyi Sec- in study our of results the by followed , II epoiea vriwo h eae lit- related the of overview an provide we 1, ‡ 1 , 2 ftecnet fgra- of concepts the of ics III ofor- To . VI . 2

(examples can be found in the summary of McDermott of three after instruction, are unable to determine where and Redish3). These studies have, among other things, the divergence or curl is (non)zero when provided with yielded an extensive inventory of conceptual problems a graphical representation of a vector field. They argue in physics and the finding that many students strug- that physics courses are often a missed learning opportu- gle with the application of their mathematical knowl- nity because they strongly focus on mathematics but fail edge in a physical context.4–6 The role of mathematics to develop a functional understanding of the underlying in physics education has been an important topic in re- concepts.55 cent PER projects.6,8–13 Manogue and Dray went so far While there is quite some physics and mathematics as to state that physicists and mathematicians speak a education research on vector calculus, the amount of re- different language, but use the same vocabulary.7 A ten- search on vector calculus in the context of electrodynam- dency for students to focus on equations and calculations ics is limited. The educational setting in this context rather than on the physical meaning behind the sym- however is different. Manogue and Dray pointed out bols has been identified as a recurring issue.14–16 Another that in mathematics the gradient, divergence and curl source of difficulties is the use of multiple representations are used in a general and abstract way, while in physics in physics and mathematics. Students have severe dif- they are mostly used in certain symmetries (Cartesian, ficulties combining the information in texts, equations, cylindrical or spherical).56 Research at the University of symbols, graphs and figures into a single unambiguous Colorado showed that problems arise when asking stu- story.17–22 Our work adds to the investigation of these dents to determine where the divergence of an electric issues in the context of an intermediate electrodynamics field vanishes for a given charge distribution. This type course. of question can be solved with the differential form of Introductory electricity and magnetism (E&M) Gauss’s law in a straightforward way. However, the au- courses are a popular setting to learn about student thors report that only 26% of their students were able to 57 misconceptions.23–35 A fair amount of research has been give a correct answer. Baily and Astolfi found that what carried out on the use of integrals in E&M.36–44 This students from St Andrews learned about the divergence research informs the work we present here, since we in one context (Gauss’s law) often did not translate to have adopted some of the ideas and methodologies in their understanding in other contexts (e.g. the continuity 58 these papers as a starting point for our own research. At equation). Dublin City University students’ ideas about integrals In summary, the literature reviewed here shows that were investigated using an approach based on the idea of students struggle when they have to use their knowledge the concept image, i.e. all the mental processes activated from mathematics in a physical context. Clearly, this when students encounter a certain concept (e.g. an also applies to the specific case of applying vector cal- integral of a vector operator).36 It is unique for every culus in electrodynamics. However, there is still a lot of person, and therefore differs from the (formal) concept research to be done on the subject. In the next section, definition, which is a description that is accepted by the the contribution of our study is formulated in terms of wider community.45 One aspect of our study concerns goals and research questions. our students’ concept image of vector operators, which we relate to the difficulties they encounter when applying Maxwell’s equations in differential form. III. RESEARCH DESIGN In advanced courses (often called E&M2 or electrodynamics) vector calculus plays an important role. It is This paper gives an account of an exploratory study of known that operations with vectors and vector fields (e.g. students’ strengths and weaknesses in using vector calcu- vector addition and the dot product) provide students lus in mathematical and physical contexts. The research with a many problems.46–51 Furthermore students strug- extends the previous findings mentioned in Section II by gle with the use of vectors in different coordinate systems adopting a broader approach to ascertain the knowledge, and the application of appropriate unit vectors.46,51–53 skills and understanding our students have acquired. The However, little is known about situations where the del goal of this study is twofold: it aims to provide both operator is applied to scalar or vector fields. Gire and researchers and teachers with insights into the learning Price discussed the option to use graphical representa- results of traditional instruction of electrodynamics, and tions when teaching about vector fields and vector cal- it is the first stage of a large scale investigation of stu- culus. Based on their experience with different types of dents’ understanding of Maxwell’s equations in differen- in-class activities, they argued that algebraic represen- tial form. tations are useful since they can easily be manipulated, In this first stage of the investigation we aim to gain in- but students gain more insight into the differences be- sight into the difficulties students encounter with vector tween components and coordinates when using a graph- calculus in a purely mathematical or physical context. To ical approach. Moreover they expect that students will this end we distinguish four different kinds of skills and benefit from being able to translate one representation competencies students need to acquire: structural under- to another.54 Singh and Maries report that about half of standing1,2 of divergence and curl, graphical interpreta- their graduate students before instruction, and one out tion of vector fields, calculation of divergence and curl, 3 and conceptual understanding of Maxwell’s equations in one two-hour problem solving session per week in which differential form. Based on their instruction prior to the they discuss typical end of chapter problems from the electrodynamics course and results from the literature, textbook. The students have already completed an in- we expect our students to have reasonable facility with troductory electromagnetism course using the textbook the mathematical techniques needed to carry out calcula- of Serway and Jewett60 that leads up to Maxwell’s equations while lacking experience with interpreting graphical tions in integral form, and at least two calculus courses61 representations of vector fields. We have investigated our that include a chapter on vector calculus. Therefore students’ attainment at the start of the electrodynamics they have encountered the necessary mathematical tools course and have tried to establish to what extent their and physical situations presented in the electrodynamics understanding of Maxwell’s equations in differential form course. changes while taking the course. We have focused on the following research questions:

• Did our students acquire a structural understand- To identify the prior knowledge of our students they 1,2 ing of gradient, divergence and curl from their in- were given a pretest before the first lecture in the ad- troductory and intermediate mathematics courses? vanced electromagnetism course based on Griffiths’ textbook.59 Since these students had encountered vector cal- – What is their concept image45 of gradient, di- culus mostly in a mathematical setting, the questions vergence and curl? on the pretest do not contain any physical context. To – How do they describe the meaning of the vec- encourage students to write down their reasoning, cal- tor operators? culations and thinking process, all questions were open- ended. A post-test was given after instruction on chap- • Can students interpret a graphical representation ters 1–7 of Griffiths’ textbook59, during a lecture about of a vector field in terms of its divergence and curl? halfway through the semester. The post-test assignments – Can they deduce where the divergence and are mostly similar to those on the pretest; however, a curl of vector fields are (non)zero in a purely physical context is introduced in some cases to investi- mathematical context? gate whether information on the physical situation affects the students’ ability to interpret the divergence and curl – Can they deduce where the divergence and of the (electromagnetic) vector fields. The post-test also curl of electromagnetic fields are (non)zero? comprises questions that evaluate students’ understand- – What strategies do they use to interpret these ing of Maxwell’s equations. There were no time con- representations? straints for the students to complete the pre- and post- test. • Did our students acquire the necessary mathematical techniques to perform calculations involving vector operators with and without a physical context? The analysis focuses on the solution method and think- – What technical difficulties do they encounter? ing process rather than the result. To describe and explain the variation in students’ conceptions, ideas of phe- – Do different kinds of coordinate systems nomenography are used. Phenomenography is an empiri- (Cartesian, cylindrical, spherical) present dif- cal approach that aims to identify and categorize the different challenges? ferent qualitative ways in which different people perceive 28,62 • Do students conceptually understand Maxwell’s and understand phenomena. The categories used in equations in differential form? the analysis of our data were established in a bottom-up approach where one of the authors proposed a set of cate- – Are they able to correctly deduce whether the gories based on the answers students gave, the strategies divergence and curl of an electromagnetic field they used and the mistakes they made. After an elabo- are zero or non-zero in a given situation? rate discussion with the other collaborators about some specific student answers, we refined our classification and decided on a final set of categories. To confirm that our IV. EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT AND categories are well defined, we evaluated the inter-rater METHODOLOGY reliability by calculating Cohen’s kappa (κ). For individ- ual questions, Cohen’s kappa ranged from 0.76 to 1.00, in- To answer the research questions, we gave written dicating a substantial to almost perfect agreement. Since paper-and-pencil questions to second year university stu- the number of students is limited (N = 30 on the pretest dents in a traditional thirteen week intermediate elec- and N = 19 on the post-test), the percentages should be trodynamics course. The students major in physics or generalized with care. Nevertheless they should give a mathematics at the KU Leuven. They use Griffiths’ text- clear view of the limitations in our students’ understand- book59 and are instructed in one two-hour lecture and ing of vector calculus in electrodynamics. 4

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION TABLE I. Categorization of students’ interpretation of the expressions ∇A, ∇ · A and ∇ × A. In this section the results of the pre- and post-test are N ∇A ∇ · ∇ × presented and discussed. The questions can be found in Category ( = 30) A A Appendices A and B. Correct concept 10% 0% 10% Incorrect/incomplete concept 23% 10% 7% Scalar 3% 63% 0% A. Pretest Vector 60% 7% 53% Naming 70% 50% 53% The pretest shown in Appendix A was given to all Formula 63% 50% 37% 30 students at the beginning of the course to probe Other 3% 3% 7% their knowledge and understanding acquired in previous No answer 3% 10% 10% courses. The first part of the pretest identifies students’ concept images45 of the operators grad, div and curl. In the second part, the students’ calculational skills and their ability to interpret graphical representations of vec- “The gradient of A is the vector normal to tor fields are tested. For this part only, some useful for- the plane.” mulas were attached to the questions (Appendix C). We also observed that some students misidentified the The three questions on the pretest correspond to the vector or scalar character of the expression. More than first three research questions that were discussed above. half of the students mentioned which operations result in Since our students only studied Maxwell’s equations in a vector field, and which produce a scalar field. Some- integral form during their introductory course, we did times they explicitly wrote it down, in other cases it could not include a question that assesses their understanding be derived from their notation. The notation in this stu- of the differential form. dent’s answer for example shows he thinks the divergence of a vector field is a vector: 1. Concept image of grad, div and curl “In three dimensions this is the divergence −→ −→ −→ −→ −→ ∇ · A ∂ A ∂ A ∂ A and therefore = ∂x + ∂y + ∂z ” The concept image question serves to get a better understanding of what students associate with the gradient, One of our students wrote that the gradient of a scalar divergence and curl in a very general sense. Expressions is again a scalar. Two students also seemed to think the for grad, div and curl are given to the students, and they divergence of a vector field is again a vector field. We are asked to write down everything they think of. From did not observe a single misidentification of the vector this, we can make some statements about the students’ character of the curl of a vector field. This corroborates concept image36,45,63 of these operators. The students’ the findings of Barniol and Zavala, who showed that stu- responses to the questions are described qualitatively in dents have significantly more problems with the vector or scalar nature of the dot product than of the vector Table I. We distinguished three important emerging cat- 51 egories in the students’ answers: information about the product. Since the students correctly described A as structural meaning of the vector operators, the scalar or being a scalar (field) and A as being a vector (field), we vector character of the expression, and the name and have no indications that there was a problem with the symbolic expression that students wrote down. Obvi- notation in the question. About one out of three stu- ously, a student can give more than one interpretation dents did not make any statement concerning the vector or scalar character in their answer (e.g. they just named and therefore the percentages sum to more than 100%. ∇ We do not suggest that students do not know something · A “divergence”, without any explanation). they did not write, but we do think the question reveals The category ‘Naming’ contains all students who wrote what is cued first and foremost. down the correct name of the expression. No students Only a few students gave a description of the operators remembered names incorrectly or mixed up the terms gradient, divergence and curl. Nevertheless, half of the we deemed conceptual. Some provided a more or less ∇ correct description that resembles the concept definition: students did not explicitly identify ·A as the divergence and ∇ × A as the curl of a vector field. Only five of “The curl tells you how strong and which way our students wrote that ∇ is the nabla symbol, and one the vector field A rotates.” student called it the del symbol. About one out of four This student did not make a statement about the local however called this symbol the gradient or the Laplacian. character of the curl, but does seem to have a rather In some cases it was not possible to determine whether good idea about what the curl represents. Others had students had the concepts confused, or the names, or very incomplete or incorrect conceptual ideas: both: “The divergence is a measure for how the “ ∇ × A is the vector product between the field is changing.” gradient and A.” 5

Furthermore, about half of the students wrote down a five categories: formula from memory, some incorrectly; all of these are counted in the category ‘formula’. In the category ‘other’ • Concept based strategy: This category includes ex- there were some correct statements that explained the planations from students that show a good under- link with Stokes’ law, the divergence theorem or conser- standing of the underlying concepts. Their answers vative fields. These students seem to have made connec- are based on drawings together with the definition tions with the integral form of Maxwell’s equations. and potentially some derived formulas that link the On the whole, students seemed to feel these vector op- differential and integral form. Typically the change erators are a tool to evaluate something. A similar focus in flux per unit area is determined by drawing a on evaluation was also seen in students’ concept image small box around a point: if there is no net flux of integration. In that particular case, students rather in the area bounded by the box, the divergence is tried to evaluate an integral that was impossible to cal- zero as there is no source/sink in this area. To ob- culate than to describe it as an area under a curve or tain the curl, a virtual paddle wheel is placed in a sum of infinitesimal parts.36 This particular question the field. If it rotates, the curl is non-zero at that does not elicit a structural understanding1,2 of the gradi- particular location. ent, divergence and curl. The second part of the pretest • Formula based strategy: The student mostly relies is designed to investigate the students’ ability to inter- on “the formula” for divergence and curl, and uses pret graphical representations of vector fields and their the derivatives of x and y to get an answer. Some skill at doing calculations in vector calculus. students even (try to) obtain an algebraic expression for the vector field and then apply the definition of the operator (typically in Cartesian coordi- 2. Graphical interpretation of vector fields nates).

We gave our students a two-dimensional representation • Description based strategy: The students use a (cor- of four different vector fields and asked them to indicate rect/incorrect/incomplete) qualitative description where the divergence and curl are (non-)zero. The as- of the divergence and curl to obtain an answer. signments can be found in Appendix A. The divergence Typically the student relies on the common English is non-zero everywhere in Field 4 and the curl is non-zero definition of the words ‘divergence’ and ‘curl’ and everywhere in Field 5 and 6. The curl in Field 7 clearly is links this in naive way to the graphical representa- zero everywhere, but determining the divergence is less tion of a vector field. This is illustrated by some straightforward. The field we sketched has 1/s depen- examples for the third vector field: dence, so that the divergence is non-zero only at the center of the field. This could for example be the electric – False descriptions: field of a charged wire pointing in the z-direction. How- “ ∇ · A =06 because the length of the ever, if students saw an unspecified dependence on s and arrows increases.” stated that they could not decide whether the divergence “ ∇ × A 0 because the field is not was zero, we deemed their answer correct. = rotating.” First the students’ answers were checked for correct- ness. Figure 1 shows that our students have severe diffi- – More or less correct descriptions: culties with these graphical representations. For Field 4, “ ∇ · A = 0 since nothing is added half of the students gave a correct answer, but for the to the field anywhere.” other three vector fields less than one out of four fig- ured out correctly where the divergence and curl are non- “ ∇ × A =6 0 because the field is zero. In Field 7, just two students could determine that rotating locally.” the divergence is non-zero only at the center of the field. About 30% of the students made at least one statement It is of course possible that students who wrote that pointed toward the typical error57 of confusing the down these descriptions have some conceptual in- derivative of the field with its value (e.g. the derivative sights as well, but their answers provided no evi- is zero when the field is zero). Our students were eas- dence for this. ily misdirected, and very inconsistent in their reasoning. • Unclear: The reasoning is not explained or it is Moreover, a significant number of students did not an- unclear. swer the question (about 20-30% for the divergence and 30-40% for the curl). It is likely that these students did • No answer: The student did not answer the ques- not know how to solve these problems, since they did tion. answer the other pretest questions. Secondly, we looked at the strategy students used to Students generally used just one of these strategies to obtain their answer. The prevalence of the strategies is solve the question. However, some used a different ap- shown in the second column of Table II. We distinguish proach to determine the divergence and the curl of a field. 6

FIG. 1. Results for the question about graphical representations of vector ﬁelds on the pretest (N = 30).

TABLE II. The prevalence and success rate of strategies students used to determine the divergence and curl of vector ﬁelds based on graphical representations used in the pretest (N = 30). Success rate Divergence # Students Field 4 Field 5 Field 6 Field 7 Concept based 3% 100% 100% 100% 100% Formula based 23% 71% 57% 57% 0% Description based 23% 71% 14% 14% 0% Unclear 30% 56% 44% 33% 11% No answer 20% - - - -

Success rate Curl # Students Field 4 Field 5 Field 6 Field 7 Concept based 3% 100% 100% 100% 100% Formula based 23% 100% 57% 71% 57% Description based 20% 100% 17% 33% 67% Unclear 23% 100% 29% 14% 71% No answer 30% - - - -

In the last four columns of Table II, the success rate for you how strong and in which way the field A certain strategy is given. The student who used the con- turns” cept based technique was very successful in determining the divergence and curl of the fields. The formula based This leads us to believe that this particular student used technique is useful if the vector function can be found and his conceptual understanding of divergence and curl to calculations are carried out correctly, which may cause tackle problems concerning the graphical representation problems for complex cases (e.g. the fourth vector field). of vector fields. Students who used a description based strategy or give little or no explanation seem to have a low chance of being successful in determining the divergence and curl of 3. Calculation of divergence and curl a graphical representation of a vector field. There are some exceptions to these generalizations, like a student who determined the divergence and curl correctly for ev- In the last set of questions on the pretest we asked ery field, but gave no explanation whatsoever. However, our students to calculate the divergence and curl of three his answers were probably well considered, as he gave a vector fields (see Appendix A). Two fields were given fairly accurate description of the divergence and curl in in Cartesian coordinates, the third in cylindrical coordi- the first part of the pretest: nates. For each of the 6 calculations, we split answers into four categories: complete and correct calculations, “The divergence of A is a scalar field that calculations with minor mistakes or omissions (e.g. a for- tells you how much is added to the vector field gotten minus sign or an expression is left unsimplified), A” calculations with major mistakes (e.g. an error in the “The curl of A is a vector field that tells use of the formula for div/curl, an error when taking the 7 derivative or inappropriate use of unit vectors), or no 11 students used the expressions incorrectly and in 10 answers. The results are presented in Table III. cases unit vectors were used inappropriately (e.g. unit vectors were appended to terms in the divergence of a vector field). Of course a single student could make mul- TABLE III. Categorization of students’ calculations of the tiple errors during one calculation. Concerning the use N divergence and curl of three vector fields in the pretest ( = of unit vectors, it was striking to see that students used 30). them very inconsistently in the pretest. Exercise (a) Exercise (b) Exercise (c) When we compare the results of the calculations to Div Curl Div Curl Div Curl the number of correct answers in the graphical represen- Correct 60% 53% 23% 43% 60% 57% tation question, the prior knowledge of these students Minor error 0% 20% 33% 13% 7% 3% clearly shows. They seem to have some difficulties cal- Major error 33% 16% 33% 3% 7% 7% culating the divergence or curl, but struggle much more No answer 7% 10% 10% 40% 27% 33% with exercises that ask for more insight. This confirms what we observed in the concept image of the students: Exercise (a) required students to make a quite straight- most of our students lack a conceptual understanding of forward calculation. Nevertheless, only 60% of the stu- the divergence and curl, and focus on evaluation. dents were able to calculate the divergence correctly, and allowing for minor errors about three-quarters calculated the curl correctly. One student calculated the Laplacian B. Post-test instead of the curl. He did not give an answer for the other parts. After instruction up to Chapter 7 in Griffiths’ text- 59 Exercise (b) was more difficult than the first one, since book , we gave the students a post-test questionnaire some challenging algebra is required to evaluate the ex- (see Appendix B). It comprises two questions concerning pression in Cartesian coordinates. This explains the graphical interpretation of vector fields (one with and one higher number of students who make minor errors. When without physics context), two questions where students allowing for minor errors, about 60% of students gave cor- have to calculate the divergence and curl after impos- rect answers. These are mostly students that could also ing a condition and two conceptual questions in which correctly calculate the divergence and curl in the first they had to use the differential form of Maxwell’s equa- exercise. Two students converted the equation to polar tions to interpret a series of physical situations. There- coordinates and then calculated the divergence and curl. fore the questions on the post-test correspond to the last One of them knew the formula for the divergence in 2 three research questions in Section III. We did not in- dimensions64 (only the formulas for 3 dimensions were clude a question that aims to examine the concept image given), the other student made a mistake at this point. of the divergence, curl and gradient because we wanted Both of them noticed that the curl is zero without doing to exclude the possibility of a retest effect and to limit any calculation at all. Two other students did not cal- the workload for the students. Since the number of at- culate the curl in this part, because they argued that a tendants in the non-mandatory lecture dropped over the vector product is only defined in 3 dimensions. It may semester, only 19 students filled in the post-test. All of not have occurred to them that the vector field could these participants also took the pretest. Based on the be considered three-dimensional with zero z-component. pretest data the population of students that took the While almost all students attempted to calculate the di- post-test is equivalent to the population of students that vergence, over one-third of the students did not attempt took the pretest. to calculate the curl. They may have been discouraged by difficulties they had when calculating the divergence. The calculation required in Exercise (c) is as straight- 1. Graphical interpretation of (EM) vector fields forward as that of Exercise (a), and a similar fraction of students calculated the divergence and curl correctly. a. Vector fields without physical context Again, this is more or less the same group of students This question is similar to the Question 1 of part 2 on that could do the calculations in the first two exercises. the pretest. Field 8 and 9 on the post-test are analogous However, many more students did not give an answer at to Field 6 and 4 on the pretest respectively (however, the all. It is unlikely that they did not know how to calculate ‘view’ is changed a bit). The results are summarized in the divergence and curl in cylindrical coordinates, since Figure 2 and are compared to the answers on the pretest. expressions were given to them. It seems that students did better with the first vector In general, we can see that approximately 60% of the field of the post-test, but made a more or less equal num- students are able to calculate the divergence and the curl ber of mistakes when interpreting the second vector field. of given vector fields, independent of the level of difficulty This was analyzed more profoundly by looking at how and the coordinate system used, if we allow minor errors. many students’ answers improved (incorrect at pretest; The major errors can be classified in three subcategories: correct in post-test), disimproved (correct at pretest; in- 10 times an error was made when taking the derivative, correct at post-test) and stayed the same. For the first 8

FIG. 2. Results for the context-free graphical representation of vector fields on the post-test (N = 19) compared to the results on the pretest (N = 30). The first vector field on the post-test (Field 8) should be compared to Field 6 on the pretest, and Field 9 to Field 4.

field, three students could correctly determine divergence TABLE IV. The prevalence and success rate of strategies stu- and curl in the post-test, but not in the pretest. Not dents used to determine the divergence and curl of vector a single student made a ‘new’ mistake. For the second fields based on graphical representations used in the post-test field, four students improved their answers, but two went (N = 19). from answering correctly to answering incorrectly. This Success rate means that most students stick to their answers: there is Divergence # Students a slight increase in correct answers, but still only about Field 8 Field 9 50% can determine the divergence and curl from a graph- Concept based 16% 67% 67% ical representation of a simple vector field. Note that Formula based 37% 100% 100% Description based 26% 0% 20% these percentages are similar to the results that Singh Unclear 21% 0% 0% and Maries found when testing their graduate students No answer 0% - - (before instruction).55 However, four students made incorrect statements like Success rate Curl # Students “The divergence is zero in the x direction, but Field 8 Field 9 not in the y direction.” Concept based 21% 50% 50% Formula based 32% 100% 100% This kind of reasoning was not seen in the graphical Description based 16% 0% 33% pretest questions, though it did emerge in the calcula- Unclear 32% 17% 17% tional pretest questions. We intend to explore this issue No answer 0% - - further in the future; it illustrates in any case that many students still struggle with divergence. Looking at the strategies the students used to determine the divergence and curl (Table IV) we see an in- electromagnetic fields ask similar questions in context. crease in concept based reasoning and formula based rea- Furthermore, the fields are a bit more ‘difficult’ in the soning. The number of unclear answers decreased and sense that they have a cylindrical instead of a Cartesian every student at least tried to give an answer this time. symmetry. The number of correct answers is very small: This effect might be due to instruction: in lectures they only a few students could correctly determine both the were told that it is possible to use a paddle wheel to de- divergence and the curl (Figure 3). termine the curl, for example. However, students were To solve this question, students could use the same not asked to use this idea in any exercises, which may strategies as before, but could also use Maxwell’s equa- explain the many errors they made. The students did tions (physics based reasoning). Because some students a lot of calculations during the tutorial sessions and the used such an argument to confirm their answer based fields are fairly straightforward, which may explain that on another strategy, it is now possible that they are en- formula based reasoning is more popular and effective in tered in multiple categories. The answers are summa- the post-test. rized in Table V. The first part shows the percentage of students that used a certain approach. Some students used a generic approach together with a physics based b. Electromagnetic fields strategy, so the total exceeds 100%. The second part The post-test questions on graphical representations of of the table shows the success rate when students use a 9

varies from point to point. Furthermore, they misinter- preted the use of a paddle wheel: they seemed to think it rotates everywhere, but it does so only in the center of the field (everywhere else it translates in a circle around the current carrying wire). Similar mistakes were made in the case of the electric field (Field 11): no more than three students understood that the divergence is non- zero only where charges are present. The most occurring mistake (37%) was that students thought the divergence is nonzero everywhere because of the appearance of the field: “All arrows point towards a certain point, so the divergence is zero nowhere.” FIG. 3. Percentage of correct answers for the graphical representation of electromagnetic fields in the post-test (N = 19). Formula based reasoning is less effective here, because the students struggle with the use of cylindrical coordinates or try to set up the equation of the field in Cartesian TABLE V. Strategies students used to interpret the diver- coordinates. gence and curl of graphical representations of electromagnetic fields in the post-test (N = 19). 2. Calculation of divergence and curl of EM fields Field 10 Field 11 Prevalence Div Curl Div Curl Concept based 5% 16% 0% 0% These questions are intended to check if students can Physics based 42% 11% 21% 26% do calculations in an electromagnetism context, which Formula based 16% 11% 5% 0% takes the form of imposing a simple condition. To de- Description based 16% 16% 11% 16% termine which field could be a magnetic field, students Unclear 26% 42% 53% 58% should check if ∇ · B = 0 applies; to check whether a No answer 0% 5% 11% 5% field could be an electrostatic field, they need to verify that ∇ × E = 0. Recognizing and imposing this condition proved to be Field 10 Field 11 Success rate Div Curl Div Curl problematic for our students: 74% (14) students were Concept based 100% 0% - - able to do this for the magnetic field and only 53% (10) Physics based 100% 50% 50% 100% for the electric field. One student did not give answers Formula based 67% 0% 0% - to any of these questions. Others used qualitative rea- Description based 67% 0% 0% 100% soning that contained something about the radial or z- Unclear 17% 0% 10% 91% dependence: “A magnetic field spreads radially outward from its point of origin. The first one doesn’t certain strategy. do that because it is in Cartesian coordi- Students tend to change their strategy between ques- nates.” tions (this is why both questions are treated separately) A few students calculated the divergence of the poten- and often fail to correctly apply the strategies they use. tially electrostatic fields, but then struggled to interpret They seem especially unsure about the use of Maxwell’s the result. equations. To illustrate this, we analyze the answer of a Almost all students who obtained the correct condition student for the magnetic field question (Field 10): calculated the divergence and curl correctly. Some even Concerning the divergence, this student did not need to calculate a full expression, but could de- states correctly it is zero: “∇·B =0 → there termine whether the divergence and curl were (non-)zero is no magnetic monopole”, which is indeed by sight. Despite the observation that some students still always true. When looking at the curl, he made errors, a slight progression could be noticed concerning the ability to perform calculations. This may be writes “∇ × B = µ0I”, but then crosses out explained by the huge emphasis on calculations in Grif- the right hand side, and simply writes “non- 59 zero”. In the end, it is unclear what argument fiths’ textbook and the exercise sessions. he used to obtain this incorrect result. Many students did similar things: they tried to use 3. Conceptual understanding of Maxwell’s equations Ampère’s law, but failed to apply it correctly. They did not appear to understand that the curl of a magnetic The last set of post-test questions intends to investi- field is only non-zero where a current flows, and that it gate students’ conceptual understanding of and insight 10 into Maxwell’s equations in differential form. To this under ∇ · B. This is alarming, since it is a truly end they had to determine whether the curl and diver- elementary law that is easy to apply. gence are zero or not in four electric and five magnetic fields.65 When Maxwell’s equations in differential form • Only 21% (4) students were able to correctly are applied correctly in every situation, one obtains the evaluate Ampère-Maxwell’s law in every situation. answers: ∇ · E = 0 always except for the first situation, Strikingly, fewer than half of the students could in- ∇ × E = 0 in situation a, c, and d, ∇ · B = 0 always terpret situation c, which is the classic textbook and ∇ × B = 0 in the last two situations. We did not example to show Maxwell’s correction to Ampère’s give the students a list of Maxwell’s equations to avoid law. It was both discussed during the lectures and 59 pointing students in a particular direction. In our opin- in Griffiths’ textbook. ion students who understand these laws will be able to These results show that our students did not profoundly reproduce at least the causality between the fields and understand Maxwell’s equations in differential form. sources. However, as shown in Table VI, students encountered tremendous difficulties in answering this question. VI. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING TABLE VI. The percentage of students who could correctly determine whether the divergence and curl of the electric We have investigated students’ understanding of diver- (magnetic) field described in a situation is zero or not (N = gence and curl in mathematical and physical contexts. 19). Concerning their initial concept image, we found that Electric field ∇ · E ∇ × E they focused on evaluation, and appeared to pay little Situation a 47% 95% attention to the conceptual meaning of the vector op- Situation b 16% 53% erators. Furthermore, their conceptual descriptions of- Situation c 26% 74% ten were incomplete and contained incorrect information. Situation d 95% 95% Some students were confused about the vector or scalar character of the operators, and used incorrect terminol- ogy. Magnetic field ∇ · B ∇ × B Situation a 63% 79% Interpreting graphical representations of vector fields Situation b 74% 79% is a difficult exercise for students. Even after instruction Situation c 74% 42% only half of the students were able to determine where the Situation d 84% 74% divergence and curl of a simple vector field are (non)-zero. Situation e 84% 68% When more complex and realistic electromagnetic fields had to be considered, only a few students succeeded in solving the question correctly. Moreover, many students Only one student did not make a single mistake, while used various strategies inconsistently. This suggests they all other 18 students made at least three errors. We could lack a structural understanding of the mathematical con- not find a correlation between the errors, but some pat- cepts, and on top of this they are unable to use their terns did emerge: acquired skills in a physical context. Since we (and many others54,55,57) believe that these • Gauss’ law, which states that the divergence of graphical representations are helpful when trying to con- the electric field is non-zero only where charge is ceptualize the abstract mathematical structures in vector present, or more conceptually still, that the source calculus, we think it would be advisable to put more ef- (sink) of an electric field is a positive (negative) fort into this kind of exercises in both physics and mathe- electric charge, elicited most errors. Only one stu- matics instruction. In our opinion it would help students dent could correctly determine where the diver- to understand the physical meaning of Maxwell’s equa- gence is non-zero for all five situations. This con- tions, which has applications beyond E&M – e.g. in sub- firms some of the findings from the University of sequent problems concerning electromagnetic radiation, Colorado: students have difficulties applying the gauge theory and the introduction to special relativity. divergence in an electromagnetic context.57 In Griffiths’ textbook59 a lot of exercises focus on com- • At least one mistake was made in the application of plex calculations. We found that students are reasonably Faraday’s law by 53% (10) students. Nine students comfortable with the required algebra, but have problems did not appear to know that the curl of an electric when they need to interpret the context of a calculation. field is non-zero when there is a changing magnetic One out of four students was unable to come up with the field, as stated explicitly in situation b. condition a vector field should satisfy in order to be a realistic magnetic field, and only half of them knew this • Despite the elaborate discussion on the non- condition for an electrostatic field. Since understanding existence of magnetic monopoles during instruc- and explaining electrodynamic phenomena is one of the tion, 53% (10) students did not check every box main objectives of this course, we suggest more attention 11 should be paid to the interpretation of the equations and Part 2 setting up the problem at the expense of doing algebraic manipulations. 1. Indicate where the divergence and/or curl is (non)zero When we investigated the competences students show for the next vector fields in the x, y-plane. The z- when they encounter situations that can be solved us- component is zero everywhere. Explain and show your ing Maxwell’s equations in differential form, we observed work. that students had tremendous difficulties with the application of all four laws. This calls for an instruction that puts more effort in linking mathematics and physics and uses a more qualitative approach. Some great ideas can be found in the article by Huang et al66, although we think even more graphical and conceptual examples y y are needed in order to fully show students the power and usefulness of Maxwell’s equations in differential form. In future work we are planning to conduct student interviews to gain more insight in the thinking process of students when they solve problems linked to the differ- x x ential form of Maxwell’s equations. This will help us understand how graphical representation and a better FIG. 4. Pretest field 1 FIG. 5. Pretest field 2 structural understanding of the mathematical concepts can help students to apply their skills in a physical context. At a later stage the results of these interviews will be used to create new or improved questions on the pre- and post-test, and to iteratively design a tutorial that aims to help students understanding Maxwell’s equations in differential form. y y

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

x x We gratefully acknowledge fruitful discussions with Charles Baily and thank him for his valuable comments FIG. 6. Pretest field 3 FIG. 7. Pretest field 4 on the paper. We greatly appreciate the cooperation with Wojciech De Roeck and the students who made this study possible. 2. Calculate the divergence and curl of the following vector fields.

Appendix A: Pretest questions 2 (a) va = x êx + x êy − 2xz êz

The first part was given to the students without any x êx + y êy (b) vb = expressions for div, grad and curl. After they finished and (x2 + y2)3/2 turned in Part 1, they were given Part 2 which contained (c) v = (r/2, rθ, −z) (Hint: cylindrical coordinates) the expressions given in Appendix C. Some space was c left blank for the students to answer after each question. Figures are displayed smaller than in the actual test. Appendix B: Post-test questions

Part 1 The expressions of Appendix C were appended to these questions. Some space was left blank for the students to 1. Interpret (i.e. write down everything you think of answer after each question. Figures are displayed smaller when you see) the following operations. than in the actual test.

∇ (a) A 1. Indicate where the divergence and/or curl is (non- (b) ∇ · A )zero for the following vector ﬁelds in the (x, y) plane. The z-component is zero everywhere. Explain and (c) ∇ × A show your work. 12

(a) Ea = E0[(z − x) ˆx + (z + x) ˆy + x ˆz] 2 ˆ (b) Eb = E0[s(2 + sin φ)ˆs + s sin φ cos φ φ +3z ˆz] 5. Check the box(es) if ∇ · E and/or ∇ × E are equal to y y zero.

∇ · E = 0 ∇ × E = 0 (a) The electric field at a distance r < R from the center of a uni- x x formly charged sphere with radius R. FIG. 8. Post-test field 1 FIG. 9. Post-test field 2 (b) The electric field generated by a changing magnetic field. 2. For the following physical situations, explain where the (c) The electric field at a distance divergence and/or curl of the field are (non-)zero. The r from a pure electric dipole. z-component of the fields is zero everywhere. Show your work. (d) The electric field inside a charged conductor. (a) The magnetic field of an infinite current carrying wire along the z-axis. 6. Check the box(es) if ∇ · B and/or ∇ × B are equal to zero.

∇ · B = 0 ∇ × B = 0 (a) The magnetic field generated by a changing electric field. y (b) The magnetic field at a distance r < R from the axis of a cylindrical conductor with radius R carrying a steady

x current. (c) The magnetic field between FIG. 10. Post-test field 3 the plates of a charging capacitor. (b) The electric field of a charged infinitely long (d) The magnetic field inside a cylinder with radius R. In the figure, the cross- solenoid with a steady current section in the x, y plane is given. passing through it. (e) The magnetic field at a distance r of a large conducting plate carrying a steady surface current density K. y Appendix C: Formulas

This section contains the formulas that were handed to x the students with the pretest (part 2) and post-test. In the pretest, these equations were given using the notation FIG. 11. Post-test field 4 the students learned in their calculus courses. In the post-test we used Griffiths’ notation.59 Only the latter 3. Which of these equations could represent a realistic are presented here. magnetic field (B is a constant with the appropriate 0 ∂v ∂v ∂v units)? Explain. • ∇ · v = x + y + z ∂x ∂y ∂z 2 (a) Ba = B0[4xy ˆx − y ˆy + (x − 2yz) ˆz] ∂vz ∂vy ∂vx ∂vz (b) B = B [ˆr +4r2 θˆ − 2 sin(θ) φˆ] • ∇ × v = − ˆx + − ˆy + b 0 ∂y ∂z ∂z ∂x ∂v ∂v 4. Which of these equations could represent a realistic y − x ˆz static electric field (E0 is a constant with the appro- ∂x ∂y priate units)? Explain. 13

1 ∂ 1 ∂ 1 ∂ 1 ∂v ∂v • ∇ · v = (r2v ) + (sin θv ) + • ∇ · v = (sv )+ φ + z r2 ∂r r r sin θ ∂θ θ s ∂s s s ∂φ ∂z 1 ∂vφ 1 ∂v ∂v ∂v ∂v r sin θ ∂φ • ∇ × v = z − φ ˆs + s − z φˆ + s ∂φ ∂z ∂z ∂s 1 ∂ ∂v ∇ θ 1 ∂ ∂vs • × v = (sin θvφ) − ˆr + (sv ) − ˆz r sin θ ∂θ ∂φ s ∂s φ ∂φ 1 1 ∂v ∂ 1 ∂ ∂v r − (rv ) θˆ + (rv ) − r φˆ r sin θ ∂φ ∂r φ r ∂r θ ∂θ

∗ [email protected] solving physics problems,” Sci. Educ. 97, 32–57 (2013). † [email protected] 17 P. Kohl and N. Finkelstein, “Student ‡ [email protected] representational competence and self- 1 A Sfard, “On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: assessment when solving physics problems,” Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. - Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010104 (2005). same coin,” Educ. Stud. Math. 22, 1–36 (1991). 18 P. Kohl and N. Finkelstein, “Effects of 2 J. Tuminaro, A cognitive framework for analyzing and de- representation on students solving physics scribing introductory students’ use and understanding of problems: A fine-grained characterization,” mathematics in physics, Ph.D. thesis, University of Mary- Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. - Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010106 (2006). land (2004). 19 P. Kohl and N. Finkelstein, “Patterns of 3 L.C. McDermott and E.F. Redish, “Resource multiple representation use by experts and Letter: PER-1: Physics Education Research,” novices during physics problem solving,” Am. J. Phys. 67, 755–767 (1999). Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. - Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010111 (2008). 4 M. Artigue, J. Menigaux, and L. Viennot, “Some as- 20 D. Nguyen and N.S. Rebello, “Students’ difficulties pects of students’ conceptions and difficulties about dif- in transfer of problem solving across representations,” ferentials,” Eur. J. Phys. 11, 262–267 (1990). AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 221–224 (2009). 5 F.R. Yeatts, “Calculus and physics: Challenges at the in- 21 M. De Cock, “Representation use and strat- terface,” Am. J. Phys. 60, 716–721 (1992). egy choice in physics problem solving,” 6 E.F. Redish, “Problem solving and Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. - Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020117 (2012). the use of math in physics courses,” 22 J.F. Wagner, C.A. Manogue, J.R. Thompson, N.S. Re- World View on Phys. Educ. Conf. , 1–10 (2006). bello, P.V. Engelhardt, and C. Singh, “Representation 7 C.A. Manogue and T. Dray, “Bridging the Gap issues: Using mathematics in upper-division physics,” between Mathematics and the Physical Sciences,” AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 89–92 (2012). APS Forum Educ. , 13–14 (2004). 23 D.P. Maloney, T.L. OKuma, C.J. Hieggelke, and 8 J. Tuminaro and E.F. Redish, “Understanding students’ A. Van Heuvelen, “Surveying students concep- poor performance on mathematical problem solving in tual knowledge of electricity and magnetism,” physics,” AIP Conf. Proc. (2004). Am. J. Phys. 69, 12–23 (2001). 9 T.J. Bing and E.F. Redish, “The cognitive blend- 24 D.P. Maloney, “Charged poles?” ing of mathematics and physics knowledge,” Phys. Educ. 20, 310–316 (1985). Phys. Educ. Res. Conf. 883, 26–29 (2007). 25 B.W. Adrian and R.G. Fuller, “A qualitative investiga- 10 J. Tuminaro and E.F. Redish, “Elements of a cognitive tion of college students conceptions of electric fields,” re- model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games,” port presented at the Meeting of the Arkansas-Oklahoma- Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. - Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020101 (2007). Kansas and Nebraska AAPT Sections (1997). 11 T.J. Bing and E.F. Redish, “Analyzing 26 V. Albe, P. Venturini, and J. Lascours, “Electromag- problem solving using math in physics: netic concepts in mathematical representation of physics,” Epistemological framing via warrants,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 10, 197–203 (2001). Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. - Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020108 (2009). 27 M.G.M. Ferguson-Hessler and T. de Jong, “On the quality 12 B.R. Wilcox, M.D. Caballero, D.A. Rehn, and of knowledge in the field of electricity and magnetism,” S.J. Pollock, “Analytic framework for students Am. J. Phys. 55, 492–497 (1987). use of mathematics in upper-division physics,” 28 J. Guisasola, J.M. Almud´ı, and J.L. Zubimendi, Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. - Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020119 (2013). “Difficulties in learning the introductory mag- 13 R. Karam, “Framing the structural role of mathemat- netic field theory in the first years of university,” ics in physics lectures: A case study on electromagnetism,” Sci. Educ. 88, 443–464 (2004). Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. - Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010119 (2014). 29 M.H.P. Kesonen, M.A. Asikainen, and P.E. Hir- 14 J. Larkin, J. McDermott, D.P. Simon, and H.A. Simon, vonen, “University students conceptions of the elec- “Expert and novice performance in solving physics prob- tric and magnetic fields and their interrelationships,” lems,” Science 208, 1335–1342 (1980). Eur. J. Phys. 32, 521–534 (2011). 15 B.L. Sherin, “How Students Understand Physics Equa- 30 C. Smaill and G. Rowe, “Electromagnetics: how well is it tions,” Cogn. Instr. 19, 479–541 (2001). understood by first- and second- year electrical-engineering 16 E. Kuo, M.M. Hull, A. Gupta, and A. Elby, “How students students?” ASEE Conf. Proc. (2012). blend conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning in 14

31 I. Garzon, M. De Cock, K. Zuza, P. van Kam- 49 N. Nguyen and D.E. Meltzer, “Initial understanding of pen, and J. Guisasola, “Probing university students’ vector concepts among students in introductory physics understanding of electromotive force in electricity,” courses,” Am. J. Phys. 71, 630–638 (2003). Am. J. Phys. 82, 72–79 (2014). 50 J. Van Deventer, Comparing student performance on iso- 32 J. Guisasola, J.L. Zubimendi, and K. Zuza, morphic math and physics vector representations, Ph.D. “How much have students learned? Research- thesis, University of Maine (2008). based teaching on electrical capacitance,” 51 P. Barniol and G. Zavala, “Test of understanding of Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. - Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020102 (2010). vectors: A reliable multiple-choice vector concept test,” 33 N.W. Preyer, “Surface charges and fields of simple cir- Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. - Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010121 (2014). cuits,” Am. J. Phys. 68, 1002–1006 (2000). 52 T. Dray and C.A. Manogue, “Conventions for spherical 34 B.A. Sherwood and R.W. Chabay, “A uni- coordinates,” Coll. Math. J. 34, 168–169 (2003). fied treatment of electrostatics and circuits,” 53 B.E. Hinrichs, C. Singh, M. Sabella, and N.S. Rebello, URL http//cil. andrew. C. edu/ . . . (2009). “Writing Position Vectors in 3-d Space: A Student Diffi- 35 A. Sihvola, J. Leppävirta, and H. Kettunen, “Signs, curls, culty With Spherical Unit Vectors in Intermediate E&M,” and time variations: learning to appreciate Faraday’s law,” AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 173–176 (2010). Adv. Electromagn. 1, 1–5 (2012). 54 E. Gire and E. Price, “Graphical representa- 36 L. Doughty, E. McLoughlin, and P. van Kampen, “What tions of vector functions in upper-division E&M,” integration cues, and what cues integration in intermediate AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 27–30 (2012). electromagnetism,” Am. J. Phys. 82, 1093–1103 (2014). 55 C. Singh and A. Maries, “Core graduate 37 J. Guisasola, J.M. Almud´ı, J. Salinas, K. Zuza, and courses: A missed learning opportunity?” M. Ceberio, “The Gauss and Ampere laws: differ- AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 382–385 (2013). ent laws but similar difficulties for student learning,” 56 C.A. Manogue and T. Dray, “THE VECTOR CALCULUS Eur. J. Phys. 29, 1005–1016 (2008). GAP : Mathematics Physics,” PRIMUS 9, 21–28 (1999). 38 C.A. Manogue, K. Browne, T. Dray, and B. Edwards, 57 R.E. Pepper, S.V. Chasteen, S.J. Pollock, and K.K. “Why is Ampères law so hard? A look at middle-division Perkins, “Observations on student difficulties with math- physics,” Am. J. Phys. 74, 344–350 (2006). ematics in upper-division electricity and magnetism,” 39 R.E. Pepper and S.V. Chasteen, “Our best juniors still Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. - Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010111 (2012). struggle with Gauss’s Law: Characterizing their difficul- 58 C. Baily and C. Astolfi, “Student Reasoning About the ties,” AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 245–248 (2010). Divergence of a Vector Field,” PERC Proc. (2014). 40 C. Singh, “Student understanding of Symmetry and 59 D.J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics (4th Edi- Gausss law,” AIP Conf. Proc. 790, 65–68 (2005). tion) (Addison-Wesley, 2012). 41 A.L. Traxler, K.E. Black, and J.R. Thompson, 60 R. Serway and J. Jewett, “Students’ use of symmetry with Gauss’s law,” Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics AIP Conf. Proc. 883, 173–176 (2007). (Cengage Learning, 2009) p. 1552. 42 C.S. Wallace and S.V. Chasteen, “Upper- 61 An introductory calculus course based on the textbook by division students difficulties with Ampères law,” Adams and Essex,67 and a course on differential equations Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. - Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020115 (2010). including some paragraphs, examples and exercises about 43 D. Nguyen and N.S. Rebello, “Students gradient, divergence and curl. difficulties with integration in electricity,” 62 F. Marton, “Phenomenography - describing conceptions of Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. - Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 010113 (2011). the world around us,” Instr. Sci. 10, 177–200 (1981). 44 D. Hu and N.S. Rebello, “Understanding student 63 S Vinner and T Dreyfus, “Images and use of differentials in physics integration problems,” definitions for the concept of function,” Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. - Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020108 (2013). J. Res. Math. Educ. 20, 356–366 (1989). 45 D. Tall and S. Vinner, “Concept image and concept def- 64 This actually is the formula for the divergence in cylindri- inition in mathematics with particular reference to limits cal coordinates in 3 dimensions, but with a z component and continuity,” Educ. Stud. Math. 12, 151–169 (1981). equal to zero. 46 P. Barniol, G. Zavala, N.S. Rebello, P.V. Engel- 65 After doing the analysis and having some fruitful discus- hardt, and C. Singh, “Students’ difficulties with sions, we decided that a fifth electric field was described unit vectors and scalar multiplication of a vector,” in an ambiguous way, and the physics was more involved AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 115–118 (2012). than intended. Therefore we left this situation out of the 47 L. Doughty, Designing , Implementing and Assessing analysis. Guided-Inquiry based Tutorials in Introductory Physics, 66 H. Huang, J. Wang, C. Chen, and X. Zhang, “Teaching Ph.D. thesis, Dublin City University (2013). divergence and curl in an Electromagnetic Field course,” 48 R.D. Knight, “The vector knowledge of beginning physics Int. J. Electr. Eng. Educ. 50, 351–357 (2013). students,” Phys. Teach. 33, 74 (1995). 67 R.A. Adams and C. Essex, Calculus: A Complete Course (7th Edition) (Pearson Education Canada, 2009) p. 1152.